1
MAJOR THEATRE STYLES (THAR 3014)
April /2020
GONDAR, ETHIOPIA
2
Contents UNIT ONE ................................................................................................................................................ 5
1. Theory of Classical Tragedy Aristotle's Poetics ................................................................................. 5
1.1. Aristotle’s Elements of Tragedy .................................................................................................... 9
1.2. EXERCISE .................................................................................................................................... 12
UNIT TWO ............................................................................................................................................. 13
2. Elizabethan and Shakespearean Tragedy........................................................................................ 13
2.1. The Problem Play or Drama of Ideas .......................................................................................... 14
2.2. The "Tragic Vision" ..................................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Some of the more identifiable acting and staging conventions common to Elizabethan theatre . 17
2.3.1. Soliloquy: ............................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.2. Aside: ..................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3.3. Boys Performing Female Roles: .............................................................................................. 17
2.3.4. Masque: ................................................................................................................................. 18
2.3.5. Eavesdropping: ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.6. Presentational Acting Style:.................................................................................................... 18
2.3.7. Dialogue: ................................................................................................................................ 19
2.3.8. Play within A Play: .................................................................................................................. 19
2.3.9. Stagecraft: ............................................................................................................................. 19
2.4. Common Elements that Appear in Shakespearean Tragedy ........................................................ 20
2.4.1. Contrast – .............................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.2. Fate – ..................................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.3. The Supernatural – ................................................................................................................. 20
2.4.4. Pathetic Fallacy – ................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.5. Nemesis (compared to Poetic Justice) – ................................................................................. 20
2.4.6. Catharsis – ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.7. Suspense – ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.8. Soliloquy – ............................................................................................................................. 21
2.4.9. Aside – ................................................................................................................................... 21
3
2.4.10. Dramatic Irony – .................................................................................................................... 22
2.4.11. Humor – ................................................................................................................................. 22
2.4.12. The Spectacular – ................................................................................................................... 22
2.5. Classical comedy (also a known as tragicomedy) ........................................................................ 22
2.5.1. Tragedy: Purpose and Effect ................................................................................................... 22
2.5.2. Comedy: Purpose and Effect .................................................................................................. 23
2.5.3. Tragic Hero ............................................................................................................................ 23
2.5.4. Comic Protagonist .................................................................................................................. 23
2.5.5. Tragic Struggle ....................................................................................................................... 24
2.5.6. Comic Struggle ....................................................................................................................... 24
2.5.7. Tragic Methods ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.5.8. Comic Methods ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.6. EXERCISE .................................................................................................................................... 25
UNIT THREE ........................................................................................................................................... 26
3. Middle Ages Theatre ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.2. Mystery Plays ............................................................................................................................. 31
3.3. Miracle Plays .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.4. EXERCISE .................................................................................................................................... 32
UNIT FOUR ............................................................................................................................................ 33
4. EPIC THEATRE ................................................................................................................................ 33
4.1. Form .......................................................................................................................................... 33
4.1.1. Movement & Gesture ............................................................................................................ 34
4.1.2. Technical aspect ..................................................................................................................... 35
4.1.3. Acting and Characterization ................................................................................................... 36
4.2. EXERCISE .................................................................................................................................... 36
UNIT FIVE .............................................................................................................................................. 37
5. Absurdism ..................................................................................................................................... 37
5.1. The Theory ................................................................................................................................. 37
5.2. The three methods to resolve absurdity ..................................................................................... 37
5.3. Theatre of the Absurd ................................................................................................................ 37
5.4. Theatre of the Absurd has some stylistic precursors as in the following ..................................... 39
5.5. Movements that influenced the theatre of the absurd are as follows ......................................... 42
4
5.6. The artistic feature of theatre of absurd ..................................................................................... 42
5.7. Themes of theatre of the absurd ................................................................................................ 43
5.7.1. The Crisis and Cruelty of Human Beings .................................................................................. 43
5.7.2. The Dissimilation of the Society .............................................................................................. 44
5.7.3. The Meaninglessness of the Existence of Human Beings......................................................... 44
5.7.4. The Isolation among People In the society described.............................................................. 45
5.8. Convention of absurd theatre .................................................................................................... 45
5.8.1. Plot and Structure .................................................................................................................. 45
5.8.2. Acting and Characterization ................................................................................................... 46
5.8.3. Movement ............................................................................................................................. 46
5.8.4. Mood and Atmosphere .......................................................................................................... 46
5.8.5. Dialogue ................................................................................................................................. 46
5.8.6. Stage craft .............................................................................................................................. 47
5.9. EXERCISE .................................................................................................................................... 47
UNIT SIX ................................................................................................................................................ 48
6. REALISM AND NATURALISM ........................................................................................................... 48
6.1. REALISM .................................................................................................................................... 48
6.1.2. The Emergence of Realism ..................................................................................................... 48
6.1.3. Beginnings of the Movement: ................................................................................................ 49
6.1.4. Conventions of Realism Theatre ............................................................................................. 50
6.1.5. Writers of Realism .................................................................................................................. 51
6.2. NATURALISM ............................................................................................................................. 52
6.2.2. Conventions of Naturalism Theatre ........................................................................................ 53
6.3. EXERCISE .................................................................................................................................... 54
7. ANALYSIS OF “OEDIPUS THE KING” PLAY ........................................................................................ 55
7.1. Author Biography ....................................................................................................................... 58
7.2. Over all Oedipus Rex play analysis on element and convention .................................................. 59
8. Bibliography and Further Reading .................................................................................................. 92
5
UNIT ONE
1. Theory of Classical Tragedy Aristotle's Poetics Classical tragedy – elements include a tragic hero who is of higher than ordinary moral worth.
Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of a
mistaken act, to which he is led by ― an error in judgment or his tragic flaw. Most often the
mistaken act ultimately leads to the hero‘s death. We feel pity for the tragic hero because he is
not an evil man, so his misfortune is greater than he deserves. There is also a sense that the hero
could have been more if not for his tragic flaw. Comic elements may be present in a classical
tragedy. The classic discussion of Greek tragedy is Aristotle's Poetics. He defines tragedy as "the
imitation of an action that is serious and also as having magnitude, complete in itself." He
continues, "Tragedy is a form of drama exciting the emotions of pity and fear. Its action should
be single and complete, presenting a reversal of fortune, involving persons renowned and of
superior attainments, and it should be written in poetry embellished with every kind of artistic
expression." The writer presents "incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to interpret its
catharsis of such of such emotions" (by catharsis, Aristotle means a purging or sweeping away of
the pity and fear aroused by the tragic action).
The basic difference Aristotle draws between tragedy and other genres, such as comedy and the
epic, is the "tragic pleasure of pity and fear" the audience feel watching a tragedy. In order for
the tragic hero to arouse these feelings in the audience, he cannot be either all good or all evil but
must be someone the audience can identify with; however, if he is superior in some way(s), the
tragic pleasure is intensified. His disastrous end results from a mistaken action, which in turn
arises from a tragic flaw or from a tragic error in judgment. Often the tragic flaw is hubris, an
excessive pride that causes the hero to ignore a divine warning or to break a moral law. It has
been suggested that because the tragic hero's suffering is greater than his offense, the audience
feels pity; because the audience members perceive that they could behave similarly, they feel
pity.
In the Poetics, Aristotle's famous study of Greek dramatic art, Aristotle (384322 B.C.) compares
tragedy to such other metrical forms as comedy and epic. He determines that tragedy, like all
poetry, is a kind of imitation (mimesis), but adds that it has a serious purpose and uses direct
6
action rather than narrative to achieve its ends. He says that poetic mimesis is imitation of things
as they could be, not as they are — for example, of universals and ideals — thus poetry is a more
philosophical and exalted medium than history, which merely records what has actually
happened.
The aim of tragedy, Aristotle writes, is to bring about a "catharsis" of the spectators — to arouse
in them sensations of pity and fear, and to purge them of these emotions so that they leave the
theater feeling cleansed and uplifted, with a heightened understanding of the ways of gods and
men. This catharsis is brought about by witnessing some disastrous and moving change in the
fortunes of the drama's protagonist (Aristotle recognized that the change might not be disastrous,
but felt this was the kind shown in the best tragedies — Oedipus at Colons, for example, was
considered a tragedy by the Greeks but does not have an unhappy ending).
According to Aristotle, tragedy has six main elements: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle
(scenic effect), and song (music), of which the first two are primary. Most of the Poetics is
devoted to analysis of the scope and proper use of these elements, with illustrative examples
selected from many tragic dramas, especially those of Sophocles, although Aeschylus, Euripides,
and some playwrights whose works no longer survive are also cited. Several of Aristotle's main
points are of great value for an understanding of Greek tragic drama. Particularly significant is
his statement that the plot is the most important element of tragedy:
Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of action and life, of happiness and misery. And life
consists of action, and its end is a mode of activity, not a quality. Now character determines
men's qualities, but it is their action that makes them happy or wretched. The purpose of action in
the tragedy, therefore, is not the representation of character: character comes in as contributing to
the action. Hence the incidents and the plot are the end of the tragedy; and the end is the chief
thing of all. Without action there cannot be a tragedy; there may be one without character. . . .
The plot, then, is the first principle, and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: character holds the
second place.
Aristotle goes on to discuss the structure of the ideal tragic plot and spends several chapters on
its requirements. He says that the plot must be a complete whole — with a definite beginning,
middle, and end — and its length should be such that the spectators can comprehend without
7
difficulty both its separate parts and its overall unity. Moreover, the plot requires a single central
theme in which all the elements are logically related to demonstrate the change in the
protagonist's fortunes, with emphasis on the dramatic causation and probability of the events.
Aristotle has relatively less to say about the tragic hero because the incidents of tragedy are often
beyond the hero's control or not closely related to his personality. The plot is intended to
illustrate matters of cosmic rather than individual significance, and the protagonist is viewed
primarily as the character that experiences the changes that take place. This stress placed by the
Greek tragedians on the development of plot and action at the expense of character, and their
general lack of interest in exploring psychological motivation, is one of the major differences
between ancient and modern drama.
Since the aim of a tragedy is to arouse pity and fear through an alteration in the status of the
central character, he must be a figure with whom the audience can identify and whose fate can
trigger these emotions. Aristotle says that "pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the
misfortune of a man like ourselves." He surveys various possible types of characters on the basis
of these premises, then defines the ideal protagonist as. . . a man who is highly renowned and
prosperous, but one who is not preeminently virtuous and just, whose misfortune, however, is
brought upon him not by vice or depravity but by some error of judgment or frailty; a personage
like Oedipus.
In addition, the hero should not offend the moral sensibilities of the spectators, and as a character
he must be true to type, true to life, and consistent.
The hero's error or frailty (hamartia) is often misleadingly explained as his "tragic flaw," in the
sense of that personal quality which inevitably causes his downfall or subjects him to retribution.
However, overemphasis on a search for the decisive flaw in the protagonist as the key factor for
understanding the tragedy can lead to superficial or false interpretations. It gives more attention
to personality than the dramatists intended and ignores the broader philosophical implications of
the typical plot's denouement. It is true that the hero frequently takes a step that initiates the
events of the tragedy and, owing to his own ignorance or poor judgment, acts in such a way as to
bring about his own downfall. In a more sophisticated philosophical sense though, the hero's fate,
despite its immediate cause in his finite act, comes about because of the nature of the cosmic
8
moral order and the role played by chance or destiny in human affairs. Unless the conclusions of
most tragedies are interpreted on this level, the reader is forced to credit the Greeks with the most
primitive of moral systems.
It is worth noting that some scholars believe the "flaw" was intended by Aristotle as a necessary
corollary of his requirement that the hero should not be a completely admirable man. Hamartia
would thus be the factor that delimits the protagonist's imperfection and keeps him on a human
plane, making it possible for the audience to sympathize with him. This view tends to give the
"flaw" an ethical definition but relates it only to the spectators' reactions to the hero and does not
increase its importance for interpreting the tragedies.
The remainder of the Poetics is given over to examination of the other elements of tragedy and to
discussion of various techniques, devices, and stylistic principles. Aristotle mentions two
features of the plot, both of which are related to the concept of hamartia, as crucial components
of any wellmade tragedy. These are "reversal" (peripatetic), where the opposite of what was
planned or hoped for by the protagonist takes place, as when Oedipus' investigation of the
murder of Laius leads to a catastrophic and unexpected conclusion; and "recognition"
(anagnorisis), the point when the protagonist recognizes the truth of a situation, discovers
another character's identity, or comes to a realization about himself. This sudden acquisition of
knowledge or insight by the hero arouses the desired intense emotional reaction in the spectators,
as when Oedipus finds out his true parentage and realizes what crimes he has been responsible
for.
Aristotle wrote the Poetics nearly a century after the greatest Greek tragedians had already died,
in a period when there had been radical transformations in nearly all aspects of Athenian society
and culture. The tragic drama of his day was not the same as that of the fifth century, and to a
certain extent his work must be construed as a historical study of a genre that no longer existed
rather than as a description of a living art form.
9
1.1. Aristotle’s Elements of Tragedy Aristotle said that tragedy has six main elements:
1. Plot; 2.Character 3.Thought 4.Diction; 5. Melody 6 Spectacle.
These will be described from least important to most important. The last four elements (Thought,
Diction, Melody, and Spectacle) are the least important, but Aristotle felt they must be done well
for the play to succeed.
Thought is the power of saying whatever can be said and should be said at each moment of the
plot. Do the lines spoken by the actor s make sense? Are they saying what should be said at each
particular moment in the play?
Diction is the actual composition of the lines that are recited. Thought deals with what is said,
and diction deals with how it is said. There are many ways to say something. A good playwright
composes lines that say something extremely well. In a good play, some lines are so well
constructed that the audience can leave the play quoting the lines exactly.
Melody and Spectacle are accessories. The Greeks sometimes used musical accompaniment.
Aristotle said the music (melody) h as to blend in with the p lay appropriately. Spectacle refers to
the staging of the play .Again, as with melody, the spectacle should be appropriate to the theme
of the play.
Character
Character is the second most important element of tragedy. Each character has an essential
quality or nature that is revealed in the plot. The m oral purpose of each character must be clear
to the audience. The characters should have four main qualities.
A. No matter who they are (hero or slave), the characters must be good i n some way.
B. The characters should act appropriately for their gender and stat ion in life.
C. The characters have to have believable personalities.
10
D. Each character must act consistently throughout the play. In other words, nothing should be
done or said that could be seen as ―acting out of character.
Plot
Aristotle felt that the action of the play (its plot) was the most important of the six elements. He
said, ―All human happiness or misery takes the form of action Character gives us qualities, but
it is in our actionswhat we dothat we are happy or miserable.
1. There must be Unity of Plot. This has already been described in the definition which talks
about ―one complete action.‖ Any events or episodes must be necessary to the main issue and
must also be probable or believable.
2. A good plot has Pripet or Discoverysometimes both. Pripet is the change from one state of
things at the beginning of the play to the exact opposite state by the end of the play. This could
be something like the change from being rich to being poor, or from being powerful to being
powerless, or from being a ruler to being a beggar. The change that takes place in a tragedy
should take the main character (and possibly other characters) from a state of happiness to a state
of misery.
Discovery is a change from ignorance to knowledge. This often happens to the tragic hero who
starts out ―clueless‖ and slowly learns how he himself created the mess he ends up i n at the end
of the play.
3. Change by itself is not enough. The character involved in the change must have specific
characteristics to arouse the tragic emotions of pit y and fear. Therefor e, Aristotle said that there
are three forms of plot that should be avoided.
A. A totally good man must not pa so from happiness to misery. This will make the audience
angry that bad things happened to him. They won‘t pity him as much as be angry for him.
B. A bad man must not pass from misery to happiness. This won‘t appeal to the audience at all
because they won‘t want to see evil rewarded.
C. A bad man cannot pass from happiness to misery. The audience won‘t feel sorry for him
because they will believe he got what he deserved. The true tragic hero cannot be too good or too
11
bad, but he must end up in misery. Aristotle concluded that the best tragedy centers on a
basically good man who changes from happiness to misery because of some great error. For
example, he might have a good quality, like pride, that gets out of hand.
4. The plot of a tragedy also involves some horrible or evil deed. The tragic hero either does it
consciously, does it out of ignorance, or mediates it (makes it easy for the deed to happen). For
the audience to be horrified by the evil deed, the evil has to be done to someone important to the
tragic hero. If the hero kills his enemy, the deed won‘t seem so bad. On the other hand, if the
hero kills someone he doesn‘t car e about, the audience won‘t care much either. To make it really
horrible for the audience, Aristotle suggested that the evil deed should be done to a family
member.
12
1.2. EXERCISE 1. Read Oedipus the king play and then write short analysis on element, genres, style and
convention in terms of Greek Drama.
2. How classical Tragedy different from modern Tragedy?
13
UNIT TWO
2. Elizabethan and Shakespearean Tragedy What exactly is Elizabethan theatre?‖ I am convinced part of the confusion lies with the title,
itself. Is Elizabethan theatre an historical period, just Shakespeare‘s plays, a theatre style, or all
of the above? Sometimes, performance styles are associated with periods in history (and hence,
theatre history) and Elizabethan theatre (or Elizabethan drama) is one of these examples.
Historically, Elizabethan theatre refers to plays performed in England during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth I (15581603). Students of theatre often forget Shakespeare was not the only
playwright during this time (somewhat understandable when they hear the term ―Shakespearean
drama‖ so regularly). Shakespeare‘s contemporaries included the likes of Christopher Marlowe,
Ben Jonson, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Kyd, Thomas Heywood and Robert Greene. These and
other playwrights also wrote and performed their plays in England during the reign of Elizabeth
I. Many of the conventions used in public performances of Elizabethan plays were so
recognizable, today Elizabethan theatre is not only referred to as a specific period in theatre
history, but also as a theatre style.
A distinctly English form of tragedy begins with the Elizabethans. The translation of Seneca and
the reading of Aristotle's Poetics were major influences. Many critics and playwrights, such as
Ben Jonson, insisted on observing the classical unities of action, time and place (the action
should be one whole and take place in one day and in one place). However, it was romantic
tragedy, which Shakespeare wrote in Richard II, Macbeth, Hamlet, and King Lear, which
prevailed. Romantic tragedy disregarded the unities (as in the use of subplots), mixed tragedy
and comedy, and emphasized action, spectacle, andincreasinglysensation. Shakespeare
violated the unities in these ways and also in mixing poetry and prose and using the device of a
playwithinaplay, as in Hamlet. The Elizabethans and their Jacobean successors acted on stage
the violence that the Greek dramatists reported. The Elizabethan and later the Jacobean
playwright had a diverse audience to please, ranging from Queen Elizabeth and King James I and
their courtiers to the lowest classes.
Christopher Marlowe's tragedies showed the resources of the English language with his
magnificent blank verse, as in the Tragedy of Dr. Faustus, and the powerful effects that could be
14
achieved by focusing on a towering protagonist, as in Tamburlaine. In Elizabethan tragedy, the
individual leads to violence and conflict. A distinctly nonAristotelian form of tragedy developed
during this period was the tragicomedy. In a tragicomedy, the action and subject matter seem to
require a tragic ending, but it is avoided by a reversal which leads to a happy ending; sometimes
the tragicomedy alternates serious and comic actions throughout the play. Because it blends
tragedy and comedy, the tragicomedy is sometimes referred to as a "mixed" kind.
2.1. The Problem Play or Drama of Ideas The problem play or play of ideas usually has a tragic ending. The driving force behind the
play is the exploration of some social problem, like alcoholism or prostitution; the characters are
used as examples of the general problem. Frequently the playwright views the problem and its
solution in a way that defies or rejects the conventional view; not surprisingly, some problem
plays have aroused anger and controversy in audiences and critics. Henrik Ibsen, who helped to
revive tragedy from its artistic decline in the nineteenth century, wrote problem plays. A Doll's
House, for example, shows the exploitation and denigration of middle Class women by society
and in marriage. The tragedy frequently springs from the individual's conflict with the laws,
values, traditions, and representatives of society.
2.2. The "Tragic Vision" In tragedy, there seems to be a mix of seven interrelated elements that help to establish what
we may call the "Tragic Vision":
The conclusion is catastrophic.
The catastrophic conclusion will seem inevitable.
It occurs, ultimately, because of the human limitations of the protagonist.
The protagonist suffers terribly.
The protagonist's suffering often seems disproportionate to his or her culpability.
Yet the suffering is usually redemptive, bringing out the noblest of human capacities for
learning.
The suffering is also redemptive in bringing out the capacity for accepting moral
responsibility
The Catastrophic Conclusion
15
In tragedy, unlike comedy, the denouement tends to be catastrophic; it is perceived as the
concluding phase of a downward movement. In comedy, the change of fortune is upward; the
happy ending prevails (more desirable than true, says Northrop Frye in the Anatomy of
Criticism), as obstacles are dispelled and the hero and/or heroine are happily incorporated into
society or form the nucleus of a new and better society. In tragedy, there is the unhappy ending
the hero's or heroine's fall from fortune and consequent isolation from society, often ending in
death.
The Sense of Inevitability To the audience of a tragedy, the catastrophe will seem, finally, to be
inevitable. Although tragedy cannot simply be identified with uncontrollable disasters, such as an
incurable disease or an earthquake, still there is the feeling that the protagonist is inevitably
caught by operating forces which are beyond his control (sometimes like destiny, visible only in
their effects). Whether grounded in fate or nemesis, accident or chance, or in a causal sequence
set going through some action or decision initiated by the tragic protagonist himself or herself,
the operating forces assume the function of a distant and impersonal power.
Human Limitation, Suffering, and Disproportion ultimately, perhaps, all the instances that we
find in tragedy of powerlessness, of undeniable human limitations, derive from the tragic
perception of human existence itself, which seems, at least in part, to be terrifyingly vulnerable,
precarious, and problematic. And it is precisely because of these human limitations
That suffering also becomes basic to the tragic vision. Tragedy typically presents situations that
emphasize vulnerability, situations in which both physical and spiritual security and comforts are
undermined, and in which the characters are pressed to the utmost limits—overwhelming odds,
impossible choices, demonic forces within or without (or both). Against the tragic protagonist
are the powers that be, whether human or divine, governed by fate or chance, fortune or accident
necessity or circumstance, or any combination of these? The more elevated, the more apparently
secure and privileged the character's initial situation, the greater is our sense of the fall, of the
radical change of fortune undergone, and the greater our sense of his or her suffering. Tragedy
testifies to suffering as an enduring, often inexplicable force in human life.
In the suffering of the protagonists, there is frequently, something disproportionate. Even to the
extent that there is some human cause, the eventual consequences may seem too severe. In Lear's
16
case, we may or may not agree that he is "more sinned against than sinning," but Cordelier
certainly is. This inequity is particularly profound for some of those who surround the
protagonists, those who seem to bear (at worst) minor guilt, the socalled "tragic victims."
The Learning Process and Acceptance of Moral Responsibility Despite the inevitable
catastrophe, the human limitation, the disproportionate suffering, the tragic vision also implies
that suffering can call forth human potentialities, can clarify human capacities, and that often
there is a learning process that the direct experience of suffering engendersLear and Phaedra
are transformed by it. Gloucester may think that we are to the gods as flies to wanton boys"they
kill us for their sport"but such a conception of brutal slaughter is alien to the tragic vision.
Indeed, tragedy provides a complex view of human heroism, a riddle mixed of glory and jest,
nobility and irony. The madness that is wiser than sanity, the blind who see more truly than the
physically sighted, are recurring metaphors for the paradox of tragedy, which shows us human
situations of pitiful and fearful proportions, but also of extraordinary achievement.
For tragedy presents not only human weakness and precarious security and liability to suffering,
but also its nobility and greatness. Tragedies do not occur to puppets. While the "tragic victim" is
one of the recurring character types of tragedy (Cordelier, Ophelia, Desdemona, Andromaque,
Hippolytus, and even, perhaps, Richard II and Phedre), tragic protagonists more frequently have
an active role, one which exposes not only their errors of judgment, their flaws, their own
conscious or unwitting contribution to the tragic situation, but which also suggests their
enormous potentialities to endure or survive or transcend suffering, to learn what "naked
wretches" feel, and to attain a complex view of moral responsibility.
The terrifying difficulty of accepting moral responsibility is an issue in Hamlet as well as in
Sophocles' Antigone or Oedipus Tyrannus. It is an issue in all tragedy, even when the moral
status of the protagonist(s) is not admirable. Whatever Aristotle's hamartia is, it is not necessarily
moral culpability, although it may be, as the case of Macbeth illustrates. Tragic vision insists
upon man's responsibility for his actions. This is the essential element of the vision that permits
us to deny access to its precincts to puppets, who, by definition, have neither free will nor
ultimate responsibility for their existence. Tragedy acknowledges the occasional disproportion
between human acts and their consequences, but imposes or accepts responsibility nevertheless.
17
In this way, pain and fear are spiritualized as suffering, and, as Richard Sewall suggests in .us
The Vision of Tragedy, the conflict of man and his "destiny" is elevated to ultimate magnitude.
One of the conventions discerned and analyzed by Aristotle was that the change of fortune,
peripety or reversal, experienced by the tragic hero, should be accompanied by anagnorisis or
cognitio, "discovery" or "recognition." The conditions and the degree of this discovery vary
considerably. It may even be relatively absent from the protagonists's awareness, as we have
noted. But it is almost always central to the audience's responses. In the school of suffering we
are all students, witnessing, like Lear, essential, "un accommodated" man, and we become
caught up in an extended discovery, not only of human limitation, but also of human potentiality.
2.3. Some of the more identifiable acting and staging conventions
common to Elizabethan theatre
2.3.1. Soliloquy: Hamlet‘s ―To be or not to be…‖ is literature‘s most famous soliloquy. This popular
Elizabethan convention is a literary or dramatic technique in which a single character
talks aloud inner thoughts to him or her, but not within earshot of another character.
Typically, a soliloquy is lengthy with a dramatic tone.
2.3.2. Aside: The aside existed in Shakespeare‘s times, but happily continued into the melodramas
of the 19th century many years later. An aside is a convention that usually involves
one character addressing the audience ―on the side‖, offering them valuable
information in relation to the plot or characters that only the audience is privy to. The
audience now feels empowered, knowing more about the events on stage than most of
the characters do.
2.3.3. Boys Performing Female Roles: Acting in Elizabeth‘s England was frowned upon my many in society as a profession
unsuitable for women, as it was rough and rowdy instead of genteel. As a result,
18
women were not legally permitted to act on the English stage until King Charles II
was crowned in the year 1660 (even though women were already acting in various
European countries in Compendia dell‘Arte plays for some years). Shakespeare and
his contemporaries therefore had no choice but to cast young boys in the roles of
women, while the men played all the male roles on stage.
2.3.4. Masque: Existing before Elizabethan England and also outliving it, the masque was normally
performed indoors at the King or Queen‘s court. Spoken in verse, a masque involved
beautiful costumes and an intellectual element appropriate for the mostly educated
upper class. Masques were allegorical stories about an event or person involving
singing, acting and dancing. Characters wore elaborate masks to hide their faces.
2.3.5. Eavesdropping: Eavesdropping was a dramatic technique that sat neatly between a soliloquy and an
aside. Certain characters would strategically overhear others on stage, informing both
themselves and the audience of the details, while the characters being overheard had
no idea what was happening. This convention opened up opportunities for the
playwright in the evolving plot.
2.3.6. Presentational Acting Style: It is generally agreed by scholars Elizabethan acting was largely presentational in
style. Plays were more overtly a ―performance‖ with clues the actors were aware of
the presence of an audience instead of completely ignoring them as part of their art.
Movements and gestures were more stylized and dramatic than one might ordinarily
expect in a modern naturalistic or realistic drama, speech patterns were heightened for
dramatic effect, and the use of conventions such as the aside, prologue, epilogue and
word puns directly connected characters to the audience watching. The aside, the
prologue, the soliloquy and the epilogue were all variations on a characters‘ direct
address to the audience when staged.
19
2.3.7. Dialogue: Elizabethan plays commonly consisted of dialogue that was poetic, dramatic and
heightened beyond that of the vernacular of the day. While often the lower class
characters ‘speech was somewhat colloquial (prose), upper class characters spoke
stylized, rhythmic speech patterns (verse). Shakespeare took great care in composing
dialogue that was sometimes blank (unrhymed), but at other times rhyming (couplets)
and often using five stressed syllables in a line of dialogue (iambic pentameter).
2.3.8. Play within A Play: This Elizabethan convention was a playwriting technique used by Shakespeare and
others that involved the staging of a play inside the play itself. It was not a flimsy
convention, but rather one that was used judiciously and with purpose. One of the
most famous examples of this convention occurs in Hamlet, when the title character is
convinced his uncle Claudius murdered his father for the throne. So Hamlet organizes
an outoftown troupe of performers to attend one evening and perform a play before
King Claudius that involves the same plot line as the events in the larger play (murder
of a King), but in a different setting … all to let Claudius know Hamlet is on to him!
2.3.9. Stagecraft: In terms of stagecraft, Elizabethan dramas used elaborate costumes, yet quite the
opposite for scenery. Acting spaces were largely empty (bare stage) with isolated set
pieces representing many of the same and minimal use of props (a single tree equaled
a forest, a throne for a King‘s palace). This explains the use of rich dialogue full of
imagery, as there was no set on stage to designate the scene‘s location. However,
Elizabethan costumes were often rich and colorful, with a character‘s status in society
being denoted by their costume, alone. There were no stage lights of any kind, with
plays strictly performed during daylight hours. A simple balcony at the rear of the
stage could be used for scenes involving fantastical beings, Gods or Heaven, while a
trap door in the stage floor could also be used to drop characters into Hell or raise
characters up from beneath. Entrances and exits were at two doors at the rear (tiring
house) and not the side wings, as is the case in modern theatre. An Elizabethan actor
20
exiting side stage may well have landed in the groundings after falling off the edge of
the (threesided) thrust stage that jutted out into the audience!
2.4. Common Elements that Appear in Shakespearean Tragedy
2.4.1. Contrast – one idea/character or object is thrown into opposition with another for sake of
emphasis or clarity use of contrast heightens distinctions of character and increases
interest by placing opposites side by side (e.g. comic scene just before a tragic scene)
character foils (those who provide contrast, usually to the protagonist) are used
extensively by Shakespeare
2.4.2. Fate – Intervention of some force over which humans have not control may complicate the
plot but does not bring about the downfall of the hero (he ultimately chooses it for
himself by his actions) pathos/sympathy may be felt by the audience for those hurt
by fate
2.4.3. The Supernatural – Shakespeare knew the appeal of ghosts, witches, premonitions, prophesies and other
supernatural events for his audience thus he included them
2.4.4. Pathetic Fallacy – since the hero‘s actions affect the entire Chain of Being, all of Nature appears to react
through unnatural happenings in animal behavior or weather
2.4.5. Nemesis (compared to Poetic Justice) – Nemesis is the Greek goddess of vengeance, the personification of righteous
indignation; she pursues those who have displeased the gods by Shakespeare‘s time,
the term became associated with any agent of fate or bringer of just retribution.
21
2.4.6. Catharsis – A term to describe the intended impact of tragedy on the audience; the reason we are
drawn, again and again, to watch tragedy despite its essential sadness by
experiencing the events which arouse pity and terror, we achieve a purging (catharsis)
of these emotions detached pity and involved terror that leaves the spectator with
―calm of mind, all passion spent‖
2.4.7. Suspense – Uncertainty in an incident, situation, or behavior keeps the audience anxious
concerning the outcome of the protagonist‘s conflict two types: that which provokes
intellectual curiosity and that which provokes emotional curiosity Shakespeare uses
conflict, precarious situations, apparently unsolvable problems, foreshadowing and
delay to develop suspense
2.4.8. Soliloquy – Speech made by character when he/she is alone on the stage (only audience is privy
to the speech) Purposes include: revealing mood of speaker and reasons for it
revealing character revealing character‘s opinion of someone else in the play
revealing motives of speaker creating suspense preparing audience for subsequent
developments explaining matters that would ordinarily require another scene
reviewing past events and indicating speaker‘s attitudes reinforcing theme
2.4.9. Aside – Comments intended only for the audience (or occasionally for one other character on
stage) made in the presence of other characters on stage, but the audience is aware
that these other characters cannot hear the asides must be short, or would interfere
with the course of the play Purposes include: to indicate character to person
speaking to draw attention to significance of what has been said or done to explain
plot development to create humor by introducing a witty comment to create
suspense by foreshadowing to remind audience of the presence of speaker, while
he/she remains in the background
22
2.4.10. Dramatic Irony – This situation occurs when the audience is aware of the conditions that are unknown
to the character on stage or when some of the characters are ignorant of what really is
on the speaker‘s mind
2.4.11. Humor – Humor may take many forms Shakespeare was fascinated by word play; therefore,
puns are common in his plays may create hum our through presenting the
completely unexpected
2.4.12. The Spectacular – Audiences enjoy scene which presents unusual sights furious action, elaborate
costumes, or stage props create the spectacular, thus Shakespeare frequently employs
fight scenes, crowd scenes, banquets, dancing parties and royal courts
2.5. Classical comedy (also a known as tragicomedy) Comedies of this variety represent a serious action which threatened a tragic disaster to the
protagonist, who resembles in most ways a tragic hero, yet by an abrupt reversal of circumstance,
the story ends happily. Refer to the above definition for the elements in a classical comedy,
noting the change in the ending.
2.5.1. Tragedy: Purpose and Effect Emphasizes human suffering
Ends with rigid finality
Moves with solemnity and foreboding
Emotional Response (pity and fear)
Identification with the hero 6) Laments man's fate
Criticizes hubris , selfdelusion, and complacency
Offers some hope (man can learn), but stresses limitations of the human condition
23
2.5.2. Comedy: Purpose and Effect Emphasizes renewal of human nature
Moves from rigidity to freedom
Plays with prevailing high spirits
Intellectual response (ridicule and absurdity)
Scorn/approval of protagonist/others
Celebrates life
Criticizes folly, selfdelusion, and complacency
Suggests cynicism (man a fool), but offers hope of renewal.
2.5.3. Tragic Hero Hero recognizes great mistake, but too late to change it
Hero demonstrates a personal flaw or error in perception
Hero frequent hubristic
Hero isolated from community in individuality
Hero exercises free will
Hero suffers terrible downfall
Hero fails through error
Hero aspires to more than he can achieve
Hero is larger than life, considerably above the audience in status or responsibility
2.5.4. Comic Protagonist "Hero" awakens to better nature after folly exposed.
"Hero" undergoes improbable improvement.
"Hero" frequently intolerant or prudish
"Hero" finds selfhood by joining flow of society and community, rejecting individuality
"Hero" is a comic mechanism
"Hero" loses and recovers his equilibrium 7) "Hero" triumphs by luck, wit,
acceptance
"Hero" pretends to be more than he is
"Hero" is just like everyone else, or might even be an antihero or buffoon.
24
2.5.5. Tragic Struggle Serious and painful struggle
Life and societal norms at odds
Struggle against unchangeable
Struggle dominated by Fate or necessity
Discovery of true nature leads to hero's isolation
Struggle against predictable and inevitable
Struggle between man and destiny, or between man and social forces beyond man's
control
2.5.6. Comic Struggle Less serious and painful struggle
Norms valid and necessary
Struggle against movable
Struggle dominated by Fortune (chance)
Discovery of true nature leads to hero's conformity with group norms.
Struggle against coincidence (unpredictable)
Struggle between individual and group or between groups (e.g., men and women)
2.5.7. Tragic Methods Tragedy depends on validity of universal norms
Cohering episodes clarify action
Causality dominates pattern of (a) deed, which leads to (b) suffering, which leads to (c)
recognition or understanding
Plot moves from freedom of choice to inflexible consequence
25
2.5.8. Comic Methods Comedy exploits conflicting values
Plot more intricate, less plausible
Coincidence dominates a pattern less grappling with the unpredictable and the absurd.
Plot forwarded by chance discoveries and accidental encounters.
Plot moves from rigidity at the beginning to greater freedom for characters at end.
2.6. EXERCISE 1. Compare and Contrast Elizabethan and Shakespearean tragedy.
2. Read Hamlet play, and then write short analysis on element, genres, style and
convention as Elizabethan Drama.
26
UNIT THREE
3. Middle Ages Theatre The Middle Ages are the period in European history from the collapse of Roman civilization in
the 5th century AD to the period of the Renaissance (variously interpreted as beginning in the
13th, 14th, or 15th century, depending on the region of Europe and on other factors). This period
was also called ―The Dark Ages‖, since it was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual
disappearance of urban life. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the fact that
little was then known about the period, the terms more usual and pejorative sense is of a period
of intellectual darkness and barbarity.
Medieval Theatre refers to the theatre of Europe between the fall of the Western Roman Empire
and the beginning of the Renaissance. Most medieval theatre is not well documented due to a
lack of surviving records and texts, a low literacy rate of the general population, and the
opposition of the clergy to some types of performance. At the beginning of the middle Ages, the
Roman Catholic Church banned theatrical performances, mostly as an attempt to curb the
excesses of the Roman theatre.
In the tenth century, the liturgical drama was born in the Qualm Quadrates? This Latin kernel is
based on the story from the New Testament in which Mary Magdalene and her companions
discover Christ's empty tomb, and it was performed in the church or cathedral at Easter time.
Eventually, liturgical drama would encompass many stories from many parts of the Bible and be
performed at diverse times of the year, according to local custom.
By about 1250, however, the plays would move outdoors into the churchyard and into open
fields, town squares, or the city streets. As geographically further from the church, the clergy had
less control over the content. The plays were also presented in the local vernacular languages,
instead of in Latin, as was the mass. This allowed the message of the Bible to be more accessible
to the illiterate audience. These new plays in the vernacular based on Bible stories are called
mystery plays. In England, they would sometimes be performed in daylong festivals (often
during Corpus Christi) in groups of dozens of plays that traveled through town on wagons.
Mystery plays were also written about the lives and miracles of saints, especially the Virgin
Mary.
27
By the late medieval period, several genres had developed in theatre. Morality plays, such as
Everyman, personified Christian virtues and vices as they battled with one another for control of
a mortal's soul. These plays were explicitly designed to teach a moral and improve the behavior
of their audience.
Secular plays in this period existed, although documentation is not as extensive. Farces were
popular, and the earliest known vernacular farce was the French Le garcon ET l'aveugle ("The
Boy and the Blind Man"), dating from the thirteenth century. In England, Robin Hood plays
were popular, and all over Europe interludes with simple plotlines were performed at various
social functions. Secular dramas were usually performed in winter indoors, and were often
associated with schools, universities, and nobility, who would have the resources, time, and
space to perform organized plays.
3.1. Morality Play
Morality Plays continuing the development of Medieval Drama, Morality Plays emerged during
the 15th century. The Castle of Perseverance is often described as the first and most complete
Morality Play while Everyman is the best known. Morality Plays differ from Mystery and
Miracle in that they focused neither on The Bible nor the saints but on the common man. The
main character in a morality play represents all humanity: Everyman, Mankind, and Humanism
Genus. The theme of every Morality Play dealt with the struggle for salvation – What can man
do to be a Christian and save his soul? The main character must make a conscious decision
against temptation to be saved, thus showing the free will of man. It's the universal battle
between good and evil. Vice versa us virtue. Which will mankind choose?
Morality Plays used allegory. Allegory is often seen in Medieval Drama, where a message or
meaning is expressed through symbolic representation: ideas and values, vices and virtues
become personified. Some examples: the character of Knowledge in Everyman, The Seven
Deadly Sins in The Castle of Perseverance, Mercy and Mischief in Mankind.
Only five medieval English morality plays survive: The Castle of Perseverance, Wisdom,
Mankind and Everyman, to give them their common titles, together constitute the entire corpus
of an apparently influential native dramatic genre. The identification of the genre has been
retrospective and depends largely on the perceived influence of these plays on the more
28
abundantly surviving Tudor interlude. It is possible on the basis of the few surviving texts to
construct a working definition of a characteristic dramaturgy for the morality play, yet their
absolute cohesion as a group is bound to be questioned in any attempt to define that form in its
individual manifestations and theatrical contexts, particularly as The Pride of Life is a corrupt
AngloIrish text and Everyman a translation from a Dutch original. What these plays have in
common most obviously is that they offer their audiences moral instruction through dramatic
action that is broadly allegorical. Hence they are set in no time, or outside historical time, though
their lack of historical specificity is generally exploited by strategically collapsing the eternal
with the contemporary.
The protagonist is generally a figure of all men, reflected in his name, Everyman or Mankind,
and the other characters are polarized as figures of good and evil. The action concerns alienation
from God and return to God, presented as the temptation, fall and restitution of the protagonist.
The story of man's fall and redemption presented in a cycle of mystery plays as an epic historical
narrative is thus encapsulated in the morality play. The dramatic variety this material offered was
a direct product of the details of contemporary belief, particularly regarding the degree of control
that the individual had in this world over his fate in the next. Orthodox Augustinian thought held
that a person's endeavors towards the attainment of heaven were ineffectual without the direct
intervention of God's grace through the Redemption. This was tempered by other currents of
thought which held that man had absolute free will to choose in this world between vice and
virtue and that those choices affected his fate in the next. The late fourthcentury writer
Prudential‘s Psychomachia. An imaginative portrayal of the battle between vice and virtue for
the soul of man was most evocative of the latter line of thought.
The element of free will allowed to man in deciding his eternal fate led to an increasing
refinement of people's imaginative perception of the forces of good and, particularly, evil,
varying according to degree and kind. Popular schemes of vices and virtues abounded, the most
prevalent being the designation of seven cardinal or deadly sins, corroborated by a body of
visionary literature in which various witnesses, such as Lazarus of Bethany and St Patrick,
offered firsthand accounts of how individual sins were punished in hell. Further categories of
venial sins were identified for which selfhelp was possible in this world or, with the
development of the concept of purgatory, in the next. Dante's Commedia, written at the
29
beginning of the fourteenth century, is perhaps the best known and most widely influential
developed imaginative vision of the entire other world in terms of crime, punishment and reward.
The believer faced both individual judgment when he died and final judgment on Doomsday
when he would be relegated body and soul either to heaven or to hell for all eternity. He also
knew that his encounter with a differentiated sin did not take the form of being snatched in an
instant by some grisly misshapen 'bug', but was the matter of protracted struggle, demanding
constant personal vigilance as well as the invocation of grace through the sacraments,
particularly the sacrament of penance. In other words, against the variegated temptations to sin,
he could invoke the fortification of Christ and the compensatory effects of his own good deeds.
This struggle is the matter of the plot of an individual morality play, the whole dynamic of its
action. Although the action of a morality play is frequently described as allegorical, the term is
used loosely to describe how action, character, space and time are related to the real world
through a tissue of metaphor. The use of prosopopoeia, or personification, in creating dramatic
characters involves a fundamental rhetorical separation between the play world and the real
world, as players take on the roles of qualities, e.g. Mercy; supernatural beings (Good Angel);
whole human categories (Fellowship) and human attributes (Lechery). The original audience's
perception of reality was in any case different to that of a modern one (391), and it is not always
clear what is an outside agent sent by God or the Devil and what an internal motive. Each role, as
actualized in a theatrical context, is presented as a distinct consciousness and is, therefore, a
dramatic character. The action can be seen securely only in terms of its own mimesis, as an
instance imitating an eternal reality. What may seem abstract was, for the period when the plays
were written, representative of true reality, transcending the ephemeral and imperfect world of
everyday existence. Later allegorical fiction, such as A Pilgrim's Progress, Gulliver's Travels,
and Animal Farm, presents its audience with a sustained, developed literal story, structurally
separable from the message for which it is the vehicle.
The only literal storyline in the medieval morality plays is, however, the actualization on stage of
their moral 'sentence'. Hence the imaginative development of the situation or instance,
constituting the plot of a play, is essentially thematic, rather than narrative, because it deals
directly in eternal truths. To anchor their action in the world, the plots of these plays depend
heavily on extended metaphor instead of a causal pattern of domestic events. In some instances
this may be a battle, as at the climax of The Castle of Perseverance, where the forces of evil
30
besiege the eponymous castle and are repulsed with a deluge of roses, a scene borrowed directly
from the Psychomachia (316). Elsewhere in this play, however, the plot corresponds more nearly
to a journey, or pilgrimage, from birth to death — another commonplace in contemporary
literature for man's life, notably in Deguileville's Pelerinage de la vie humaine . Everyman also is
a pilgrimage, but one which focuses on the end of the journey, as the protagonist confronts his
death, whereas the unfinished Pride of Life appears to present the same journey interrupted by
the untimely early arrival of death. Mankind employs yet another metaphor for fallen existence,
the life of hard agricultural labor being equated with virtuous penitential living for the
protagonist. The more socially refined tone of Wisdom unites its highly complex theological
argument by presenting the movement towards a hardwon final harmonious relationship
between the soul and Christ in terms of marriage metaphors. What all have in common is an
argument directed against a specific sin, based on a package of doctrine and illustrated through
these systems of sustained metaphors, drawing on the received commonplaces of virtuous living.
As aspects of an argument intended for edification, time, place, plot and character are all morally
directed. The same strategies extend to the spoken text. All the plays under consideration are in
verse and employ clear rhetorical markers. The speaker is instantly placed at any given moment
on a scale between absolute good and absolute evil by the controlled choice of lexis, syntax and
register, as well as by manipulation of stanza structure. The transformational nature of fall and
redemption are both indicated in this manner: fall into sin is characterized by fragmented lines,
blasphemy and nonsense. Virtue, on the other hand, is characterized by highstyle, Latinate
structures, characters more usually talking in complete stanzas. The rhetoric of theatrical
communication must be ambivalent in a play that offers its audience prescribed doctrine.
Although these plays are often described as didactic, that term also requires qualification. As is
the case with the cycle plays, their orthodoxy serves to confirm and to celebrate rather than to
argue. In fifteenthcentury religious drama, the desired effect was concordance, achieved by a
conspiracy of the verbal and the visual: diction, costume, placing and gesture all function as clear
supportive signs of moral status.
The dynamic nature of these plays lies not in internally contrived conflicts, but in the manner in
which they generate pressure upon their audiences emotionally and physically, as well as
intellectually. The precise manner in which these various effects are achieved is best explored by
reference to individual plays. In what follows, the five lays are treated in an order that allows for
31
a developed analysis of their form, rather than one determined by their strict chronology, which
cannot be positively established in any case.
3.2. Mystery Plays Mystery Plays were based on scenes and stories from The Bible and were often performed
together in a series called a cycle. Depending on the cycle, the series could take all day, or span
multiple days. There are four intact cycles that remain from the era: Wakefield, York, Chester,
and Ntown. The Wakefield Cycle was the most comedic and irreverent of the four, often
mentioning contemporary events. Chester was the most faithful to the religious nature of the
original stories. In the Ntown Cycle, N stands for the Latin word ―no men‖ which means name.
Any town could use their own name for that cycle. Cycles could range from the fall of the
Angels to Judgment Day.
A common theme of Mystery Plays was to show a fall, then Redemption. Story examples
include:
Adam and Eve
Abraham and Isaac
The Last Supper
The Resurrection
In England, Mystery Plays were performed on pageant wagons. Each wagon held a different
story and moved from location to location around the town. Each wagon was also the
responsibility of a different trade guild (such as bakers, blacksmiths, carpenters, and plasterers.)
The guild produced the play, took care of the wagon, built the sets, and made the costumes.
Guilds often received stories related to their craft.
The shipwrights performed Noah's Ark.
The goldsmiths performed the Three Wise Men.
The shepherds performed The Nativity. Were the plays always serious?
There is a misconception that Mystery Plays, because of their origin and subject matter, were
dour and serious. Certainly some were. But as they moved away from the church's control, the
more secular they became, and elements of humor found their way through. For example, in The
32
Second Shepherd‘s Play, a shepherd and his wife steal a sheep and try to hide it for comic effect.
They pretend the sheep is their newborn son. Even in the medieval era, theatre had to relate to its
audience. The Medieval audience could not read or write. For the most part they were blue collar
working men and women. In order for the plays to connect to the audience, they had to speak the
language of the audience, have modern references, and feature characters who were familiar to
their audience.
The Origin of the term Mystery Play There are a number of different views as to how Mystery
Plays came to be called such.
The word mystery also means ―religious truth.‖
From the French mystery, meaning secret.
That it has to do with the trade guilds who performed the plays. Craftspeople were called
misterm.
3.3. Miracle Plays The Miracle Plays were some of the earliest in the era, developing during the 12th century. In
some areas the terms Miracle and Mystery are interchangeable when describing medieval drama,
particularly in reference to English plays. But true Miracle Plays have their own focus. Instead of
Bible stories, they dramatized the lives, the legends and miracles of Roman Catholic saints. This
type of religious drama flourished in France with writers such as Jean Bode and Rutebeuf. Some
of the saints most typically portrayed were the Virgin Mary, St. George, and St. Nicholas. Few
examples exist today. Miracle Plays were eventually banned in England because of their Roman
Catholic leanings.
3.4. EXERCISE 1. Read “Every man” play, and then write short analysis on element, genres, style and
convention as Liturgical Drama.
33
UNIT FOUR
4. EPIC THEATRE Epic – applied to a work that meets at least one of the following criteria: it is a long narrative
poem on a great and serious subject, told in an elevated style, and centered on a heroic or quasi
divine figure on whose actions depends the fate of a tribe, a nation, or the human race. The epic
typically emphasizes the struggle between the hero‘s ethos (the disposition, character, or attitude
peculiar to a specific people, culture, or group that distinguishes it from other people of groups;
fundamental values or spirit; mores) and his human failings or mortality. An epic contains the
following elements:
4.1. Form Brecht‘s form of theatre was known as ‗epic theatre‘, most likely coined by collaborator Erwin
Picador some scholars argue the term ‗epic theatre‘was already in use in European experimental
theatre. Epic plays employed a large narrative (as opposed to a smaller plot), spanning many
locations and time frames.
Brecht called scenes ‗episodes‘, with each scene being relatively selfcontained in the
story
epic plays used nonlinear, fractured plots, where the events of an episode were not
necessarily a result of the preceding episode
this juxtaposition of scenes employing multiple locations and time frames created a
montage effect
he used his acting troupe at the Berliner Ensemble to perfect his theories on acting and
the theatre
some of his plays were historical, chronicling the life of a person (Life of Galileo, Saint
Joan of the Stockyards)
focus was always on the society being presented in the play, not individual characters
events in plays were sometimes told from the viewpoint of a single storyteller (alienation
device)
Brecht wrote his plays with no act or scene divisions; these were added later
34
long scenes told the main events of the story and were interspersed with occasional
shorter scenes
shorter scenes normally involved parables, used to emotionally detach the audience
marginally
parable scenes often involved the use of song, an alienation device employed by Brecht
to help deliver the (Marxist) message of the play
historification‘/‘historicisation‘ was a Brecht term defining the technique of setting the
action of a play in the past to draw parallels with contemporary events
‗historification‘/‘historicisation‘ enabled spectators to view the events of the play with
emotional detachment and garner a thinking response
Brecht crushed Aristotle‘s model of the three unites of time, place and action (one
location, single day)
4.1.1. Movement & Gesture mix of realistic and nonrealistic movement
movement was at times graceful, but at other times forceful
Brecht used the Latin word gestus‘ to describe both individual gestures and whole body
postures
character gusts denoted one‘s social attitude and human relationships with others (linked
to Marxist principles)
some Oriental gesture used (Brecht‘s influence of a Balinese dance showing)
groups of characters often positioned on the stage for functional and not aesthetic
reasons
characters grouped according to their social relationships in the play (Marxist)
Space & Actor Audience Relationship
Brecht‘s plays were performed in traditional proscenium arch theatre houses
however, the stage curtain was often dispensed with or a half curtain used instead of a
full one
Brecht preferred to call the audience ‗spectators‘
direct address by actors/characters to audience was a strong and unconventional
technique used by performers
35
direct address broke the (invisible) ‗fourth wall‘ and crushed traditional
realistic/naturalistic conventions
the narrator was a common figure in Brechtian dramas (Brecht was probably the father
of the modern narrator)
4.1.2. Technical aspect costume was not individually identifiable e.g. the farmer‘s costume represented ‗a
(typical) farmer‘
costume was sometimes incomplete and fragmentary e.g. tie and briefcase for the
businessman
costume often denoted the character‘s role or function in society (plus wealth/class) sets
were sometimes nonexistent or fragmentary (either partial sets or one object
representing many of the same)
at other times sets were industrial e.g. ramps, treadmills (influence of Meyer hold‘s
constructivist set design)
some makeup and mask use, but nonrealistic and ‗theatrical‘ e.g. grotesque and/or
caricatured
makeup and costume used to depict a character‘s social role in the play, not that of
his/her everyday appearance
signs/placards used to show audience a range of information
screen projection used to reinforce play‘s theme/s (to garner an intellectual response, not
emotional)
open white light only (as color would generate an emotional response from the audience)
if the house lights were left on during a performance, open white light also allowed for
the spectators and performers to share a single samelit space
lighting instruments in full view of audience (no attempt to hide them, but rather remind
the audience they were watching a play)
music and song used to express the play‘s themes independent of the main spoken text in
the play (in parable scenes)
36
4.1.3. Acting and Characterization actor was never to fully become the character, as in the realistic/naturalistic theatre
actor was asked to demonstrate the character at arm‘s length with a sense of detachment
often characters tended to be somewhat oversimplified and stereotyped
yet other characters were sometimes complex
historical, reallife characters in some Brecht plays
some (but not all) character names were generic e.g. the worker, the peasant, the teacher
mix of presentational and representational acting modes utralize emotion, rather than
intensify it (opposite to a modernday musical
4.2. EXERCISE 1. Read “Mother Courage” play, and then write short analysis on element, genres, style and
convention as epic theatre.
37
UNIT FIVE
5. Absurdism A philosophy based on the belief that the universe is irrational and meaningless and that the
Absurdism became popular in the 20th century alongside nihilism.
Two main authors: Søren Kierkegaard (free will and existentialism), and Albert Camus.
Kierkegaard took a spiritual approach and is thus out of line with modern absurdist philosophy.
Most absurdists are atheists or apatheists. search for order brings the individual into conflict with
the universe.
5.1. The Theory The universe is inherently random and meaningless, and therefore any attempt by humans to find
meaning is considered absurd. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus states “the absurd is born out of
this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.” Thus, we
are all free. Structures, rules, laws etc. are all simply attempts to impose order in an order less
5.2. The three methods to resolve absurdity Suicide: “There is but one serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide,” (Camus,
An Absurd Reasoning).
Embracing a meaning framework through spirituality or religion (Kierkegaard)
Acceptance (Camus): “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it
so much like myself ー so like a brother, really ー I felt I had been happy,” (Camus 122).
5.3. Theatre of the Absurd The term ‘Theatre of the Absurd’ was coined by Martin Esslin in his 1962 book by that title. It
refers to the work of a loosely associated group of dramatists who first emerged during and after
World War II. Theatre of the Absurd came about as a reaction to World War II.
The global nature of this war and the resulting trauma of living under the threat of a nuclear
annihilation put into stark perspective the essential precariousness of human life.
38
It takes the basis of existential philosophy.
The playwright of the absurd views life existentially and expresses the senselessness of it. Most
of the plays express a sense of wonder, incomprehension, and at times despair at the
meaninglessness of human existence. Since, they do not believe in a rational and wellmeaning
universe, they do not see any possibility of resolution of the problems they present, either.
The absurdist playwrights give artistic expression to Albert Camus' existential philosophy, as
illustrated in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus, that life is inherently meaningless. The Myth of
Sisyphus is the harbinger of the theatre of the absurd.
The Theatre of the Absurd does not argue about the absurdity of the human condition; it merely
presents it in being via concrete stage images.
It creates a style of theatre which presented a world which cannot be logically explained.
It uses techniques that seemed to be illogical to the theatre world. The arbitrary structure
of the plays reflects the arbitrary and irrational nature of life.
Structurally, in contrast to a well made play with a beginning, middle and a neatly tied up
ending, the plays by the absurdist playwrights often start at an arbitrary point and end just
as arbitrarily. The plots often deviate from the more traditional episodic structure, and
seem to be cyclic, ending the same way it begins. It rejects narrative continuity and the
rigidity of logic.
The scenery is often unrecognizable.
The dialogue never seems to make any sense. Language is seen as a futile attempt to
communicate. In short, the communication is impossible.
The general effect is often a nightmare or dreamlike atmosphere in which the protagonist
is overwhelmed by the chaotic or irrational nature of his environment.
Most absurdist intermix farce and tragedy in which the poignantly tragic may come upon
the funny, or vice versa.
Unlike the traditional theatre which attempts to create a photographic representation of life as
we see it, the Theatre of the Absurd aims to create a rituallike, mythological, archetypal,
allegorical vision, closely related to the world of dreams. The focal point of these dreams is
often man's fundamental bewilderment and confusion, stemming from the fact that he has no
39
answers to the basic existential questions: why we are alive, why we have to die, why there is
injustice and suffering.
The Theatre of the Absurd, in a sense, attempts to reestablish man’s communion with the
universe. The Theatre of the Absurd hopes to achieve this by shocking man out of an
existence that has become trite, mechanical and complacent. It is felt that there is mystical
experience in confronting the limits of human condition.
One of the most important aspects of absurd drama is its distrust of language as a means of
communication.
Language is nothing more than a vehicle for conventionalized, stereotyped,
meaningless exchanges.
The Theatre of the Absurd shows language as a very unreliable and insufficient tool of
communication. Absurd drama uses conventionalized speech, clichés, slogans and technical
jargon, which it distorts, parodies and breaks down. By ridiculing conventionalized and
stereotyped speech patterns, the Theatre of the Absurd tries to make people aware of the
possibility of going beyond everyday speech conventions and communicating more
authentically.
5.4. Theatre of the Absurd has some stylistic precursors as in the
following Tragicomedy: The mode of most ‘absurdist’ plays is tragicomedy. Writers associated
with the theatre of the absurd have been particularly attracted to tragicomedy.
Tragicomedy is a form of drama that combines tragic and comic elements. Sudden
reversals, averted catastrophes, and happy endings were the standard ingredients of the
form.
Dadaism: Many of the Absurdists had direct connections with the Dadaists. Dadaism or
Dada is a postWorld War I cultural movement in visual art as well as literature (mainly
poetry), theatre and graphic design. The movement was a protest against the barbarism of
the War and what Dadaists believed was an oppressive intellectual rigidity in both art and
everyday society; its works were characterized by a deliberate irrationality and the
40
rejection of the prevailing standards of art. Dada began as an antiart movement, in the
sense that it rejected the way art was appreciated and defined in contemporary art scenes.
Surrealism: Surrealism style uses visual imagery from the subconscious mind to create art
without the intention of logical comprehensibility. The movement was begun primarily in
Europe, centered in Paris, and attracted many of the members of the Dada community.
Influenced by the psychoanalytical work of Freud and Jung, there are similarities
between the Surrealist movement and the Symbolist movement of the late 19th century.
‘The Theatre of Cruelty’ was a particularly important philosophical treatise. Artaud
claimed theatre's reliance on literature was inadequate and that the true power of theatre
was in its visceral impact. Artaud rejected realism in the theatre, calling for a return to
myth and magic and to the exposure of the deepest conflicts within the human mind. He
demanded a theatre that would produce collective archetypes and create a modern
mythology.
The Theatre of the Absurd departs from realistic characters, situations and all of the associated
theatrical conventions. Time, place and identity are ambiguous and fluid, and even basic
causality frequently breaks down.
Meaningless plots, repetitive or nonsensical dialogue and dramatic nonsequiturs are often used
to create dreamlike or even nightmarelike moods. There is a fine line, however, between the
careful and artful use of chaos and nonrealistic elements and true, meaningless chaos. While
many of the plays described by this title seem to be quite random and meaningless on the
surface, an underlying structure and meaning is usually found in the midst of the chaos.
Characters: The characters in Absurdist drama are lost and floating in an incomprehensible
universe. Many characters appear as automatons stuck in routines speaking only in cliché.
Characters are frequently stereotypical, archetypal, or flat character types. The more complex
characters are in crisis because the world around them is incomprehensible. Characters in
Absurdist drama may also face the chaos of a world that science and logic have abandoned.
Characters may find themselves trapped in a routine. The plots of many Absurdist plays feature
characters in interdependent pairs, commonly either two males or a male and a female. The two
characters may be roughly equal or have a begrudging interdependence (like Vladimir and
Estragon in Waiting for Godot). One character may be clearly dominant and may torture the
41
passive character (like Pozzo and Lucky in Waiting for Godot); the relationship of the characters
may shift dramatically throughout the play.
Plot: Plots are frequently cyclical: generally, begins where the play ended – some lines at the
beginning responding to some lines at the end – and it can be assumed that each day the same
actions will take place. Plots can consist of the absurd repetition of cliché and routine, as in
Godot. Often there is a menacing outside force that remains a mystery. Absence, emptiness,
nothingness, and unresolved mysteries are central features in many Absurdist plots: for example,
the action of Godot is centered around the absence of a man named Godot, for whom the
characters perpetually wait. The plot may also revolve around an unexplained metamorphosis, a
supernatural change, or a shift in the laws of physics.
Language: Despite its reputation for nonsense language, much of the dialogue in Absurdist plays
is naturalistic. The moments when characters resort to nonsense language or clichés–when words
appear to have lost their denotative function, thus creating misunderstanding among the
characters (Esslin [1961] 26)–make Theatre of the Absurd distinctive. Language frequently gains
a certain phonetic, rhythmical, almost musical quality, opening up a wide range of often comedic
playfulness. Distinctively Absurdist language will range from meaningless clichés to Vaudeville
style word play to meaningless nonsense.
The theatre of the absurd was a shortlived yet significant theatrical movement, centered in
Paris in the 1950s. Unusual in this instance was the absence of a single practitioner spearheading
the form. Largely based on the philosophy of existentialism, absurdist was implemented by a
small number of European playwrights. Common elements included illogical plots inhabited by
characters who appeared out of harmony with their own existence. The typical playgoer had
never seen anything like this on the stage before. The theatre of the absurd will be remembered
in history for many things, the most significant of these being Samuel Beckett‘s masterpiece
waiting for Godot, one of the great plays of the 20th century. Absurdist is commonly studied in
senior high school and university drama and theatre courses. Below are the main conventions of
the theatre of the absurd.
42
5.5. Movements that influenced the theatre of the absurd are as
follows Commedia dell‘arte: A form of comic drama developed by guilds of professional Italian actors.
It relied on the use of stock characters and situations, plenty of comic situations, and the actors
used masks to represent their characters.
Expressionism: An artistic theory of the late 19th century where the subconscious thoughts are
presented by a series of nonnaturalistic techniques.
Dadaism: A nihilistic movement in the arts that flourished chiefly in France, Switzerland, and
Germany in the early 20th century. The movement is marked by a disgust for bourgeois values
and despair over World War I.
Surrealism: Launched as an artistic movement in France by Andre Breton‘s Manifesto on
Surrealism (1924), surrealism can be considered an offshoot of Dadaism. Gradually this
movement had a farreaching influence on the literature of the absurd, antinovel, magic realism
and postmodernism.
Silent film comedy: Actors such as Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton embodied the alienation
of men when faced with mechanical devices and rapid industrialization. Eugene Ionesco even
announced that his The Chairs was influenced by the works of the Marx brothers. The most
prominent names associated with the theatre of the absurd are: Arthur Adamou, Fernando
Arrayal, Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Jean Genet, Gunter Grass, Edward Albee, Harold
Pinter and Tom Stoppard.
5.6. The artistic feature of theatre of absurd Artistic feature is an extensive category in literary field. It can be expressed in many ways by
playwrights or writers. It is also a key point when we make a research on a literary work both at
home and abroad. As a rule, every kind of theater has its own artistic features with regard to its
special background and social demands. The Theatre of the Absurd is not an exception. In the
Theater of the Absurd, multiple artistic features are used to express tragic theme with a comic
form. The features include anticharacter, antilanguage, antidrama and antiplot.
43
5.7. Themes of theatre of the absurd The existence of human being is full of suffering, cruelty and danger. Such existence forms an
atmosphere of the devaluation of life in modern society. Facing this atmosphere, human beings
lose themselves in it. Gradually, they feel lonely, frightened and despairing. Emptiness therefore
becomes the true essence of their daily lives. Isolation and absurdity gradually fill their minds.
The Theater of the Absurd actually reflects the reality of life in a bleak society. From it, we find
that people in their daily lives are tired, obscure and aimless. The Theater of the Absurd is the
product of modern society. People do not know the real meaning and destination of their lives.
Some advanced writers have an insight in it and write it in a special form, which is called the
Theater of the Absurd. At the beginning, it is difficult for the public to accept. When people
appreciated the Bald Soprano on the stage for the first time, only several people were left in the
theater. As time goes by, more and more people think highly of this kind of theater and consider
that it is suitable for their lives. Theater originally is used to show the reality on the stages. But
everybody knows that reality is serious and full of dangers and adventures and it usually gives us
tragic effects. Using comic form to end a play is a relative comfortable and moderate way. It can
be accepted by common people more easily after comparing with other forms. When you begin
to read the play, you may laugh at the characters and their words and behaviors. But after you
finish reading the play, you may change your mind and consider its theme once again. You will
consider that it is worthwhile to regard the play as a tragicomedy. Degradation and oppression
should have been part of the tragic theme, but many playwrights in the Theater of the Absurd
describe them in a happy and comic form. When you read this kind of play, you may feel
ridiculous about them.
5.7.1. The Crisis and Cruelty of Human Beings In the Theater of the Absurd, playwrights try to explore the crisis and cruelty of human beings.
The Theater of the Absurd appeared in 1950s. At that time, economy developed very fast in
western world. All kinds of new technologies were used in every field. People who wanted to
survive must catch up with the step and variation of the society as soon as possible. If they could
not keep pace with the speed of the society, they would be abandoned and lose themselves in it.
Some of them were destined to be left and they could not find their status and identification. So it
doomed that their minds were full of crisis and cruelty and usually their thoughts were strange
44
and curious. Some pioneers wrote their minds and thoughts in the Theater of the Absurd to
reveal their inner feelings. In contrast, traditional playwrights involve in more extensive themes,
such as politics, economics and culture. Playwrights in the Theater of the Absurd regard the
crisis and cruelty of human beings as one of its themes (Wang, 1995).
5.7.2. The Dissimilation of the Society Dissimilation means that people regard the metamorphic things as normal things. Dissimilation
of the society means that many abnormal things have appeared, what‘s more, these phenomena
have been regarded as normal things. Disease, death and hunger are often regarded as the themes
to discuss. Evil, crime and violence are often thought to be natural things in the society. When
people come across these occasions, they would feel sad and sympathetic for the dead or the
patients. But in the Theater of the Absurd, people consider it in an indifferent attitude. The world
makes people feel unconcerned and even unmerciful. People no longer believe in any gods who
can save them from the heaven. Material life is thought at the first place. Meanwhile, money is
considered the most important thing in the world. Money is the first condition before people do
everything. People live in a world where love and mutual assistance are meaningless. There is no
love and trust among them.
5.7.3. The Meaninglessness of the Existence of Human Beings To the two characters in Waiting for Godoy, the meaning of their lives is just endless waiting.
They could not find what they are waiting for. Their life is meaningless. They even could not
find the essence of human existence. Though they live in the real world, their lives are
ridiculous. In the Theater of the Absurd, playwrights express their true feelings to this world by
means of the protagonist whom they have depicted in their plays. A play, in fact, is a mirror
which reflects the real phenomena in the society. In the Theater of the Absurd the playwrights
strive to express the senselessness of the human race and the inadequacy of the rational approach
by the open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thought. While Sartre or Camus
express the new content in the old convention, the Theater of the Absurd goes a step further in
trying to achieve a unity between its basic assumption and the form in which these are expressed.
They live in a real world, but they don‘t feel their existence. In fact, they are afraid of their
existence, so they would rather put themselves in a confused or unconscious condition. Only
45
when they don‘t realize their existence can they feel that they are alive. Most poor people exist
and live in endless poverty, and life is terrible to them. If they consider their lives earnestly, their
lives are miserable and painful. Only when they forget the reality can they abandon the suffering
and feel their existence. But suffering is endless as long as they live, so they have to endure them
from cradle to grave (Dial, 2008).
5.7.4. The Isolation among People In the society described By the Theater of the Absurd, the relationship among people is measured through material and
money. When they face some dangers and problems, few people come to help them. People who
live in this society for a long time will feel lonely and indifferent. Human beings communicate
with each other in a cold and detached attitude. Because of this, people gradually have less
communication and would rather locked themselves in cages. And once more the chain reactions
lead to a serious isolation among people. Therefore, the isolation is just like a snowball which is
growing in people‘s heart. People seldom communicate with each other and hardly believe in
each other. Because selfishness and fright fill their hearts, they are afraid that people who have
higher social status than them will laugh at or look down upon them. So they try their best to
cover and hide themselves under the surface of the material. And their desires and pursuits are
put in their hearts silently even if they have rights to express them. In Waiting for Godoy, the
boys seem to be good friends, but the relationship between them is isolated and unconcerned.
They cannot bring any warmth and comfort to each other. They communicate in just a few of
words without much feeling and concern (Wang, 2001). The condition of little care or concern
would make people feel lonely and helpless. Only in the Theater of the Absurd can this
phenomenon express the original and true features of the society.
5.8. Convention of absurd theatre
5.8.1. Plot and Structure anti‐realistic, going against many of the accepted norms of conventional theatre
has been labeled by some critics as ‘anti‐theatre’
frequently characterized by a deliberate absence of the cause and effect relationship
between scenes
46
non‐linear plot developments, often circular, ending where they began
occasionally appearing as though there is no plot at all
Deliberate lack of conflict
5.8.2. Acting and Characterization Both presentational and representational modes of acting
sometimes stereotypical
often an absence of character development
time, place and identity are frequently blurred with characters often unsure about
who or where they are
characters are often out of sync with the world in which they live
5.8.3. Movement Combination of realistic and non‐realistic
Elements of circus, vaudeville and acrobatics
Ritualistic
slow
illogical
repetitive
action sometimes defies logic or easy understanding
5.8.4. Mood and Atmosphere moves between extremes, from serious to comical
5.8.5. Dialogue language was devalued as a communication tool (unreliable and distrusted)
Often illogical
Sometimes telegraphic and clipped
Long pauses
Clichéd
Repetitive
47
Rhythmical
Frequent use of silence
5.8.6. Stage craft Often simple and minimalist use of stagecraft
barren set pieces barely denoting a location
5.9. EXERCISE 1. Read “Waiting for Godot” play, and then write short analysis on element, genres, style
and convention as absurd Drama.
48
UNIT SIX
6. REALISM AND NATURALISM
6.1. REALISM Realism in the last half of the 19thcentury began as an experiment to make theater more useful to
society. The mainstream theatre from 1859 to 1900 was still bound up in melodramas, spectacle
plays (disasters, etc.), comic operas, and vaudevilles. But political events—including attempts to
reform some political systems—led to some different ways of thinking. Revolutions in Europe in
1848 showed that there was a desire for political, social, and economic reform. The many
governments were frightened into promising change, but most didn’t implement changes after
the violence ended.
Technological advances were also encouraged by industry and trade, leading to an increased
belief that science could solve human problems. But the working classes still had to fight for
every increase in rights: unionization and strikes became the principal weapons workers would
use after the 1860s—but success came only from costly work stoppages and violence. In other
words there seems to be rejection of Romantic idealism; pragmatism reigned instead. The
common man seemed to feel that he needed to be recognized, and people asserted themselves
through action.
6.1.2. The Emergence of Realism 1. August Comte (1798-1857), often considered to be the "father of Sociology," developed
a theory known as Positivism. Among the Comte’s ideas was an encouragement for
understanding the cause and effect of nature through precise observation.
2. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) published The Origin of Species in 1859 and creators a
worldwide stir which exists to this day. Darwin’s essential series suggested that life
developed gradually from common ancestry and that life favored "survival of the fittest."
The implications of Darwin's Theories were threefold:
49
1. people were controlled by heredity and environment
2. behaviors were beyond our control
3. humanity is a natural object, rather than being above all else
3. Karl Marx (1818-1883) in the late 1840’s espoused a political philosophy arguing
against urbanization and in favor of a more equal distribution of wealth
Even Richard Wagner (pronounced "RihKard’ Vahg’ner") (18131883), while rejecting
contemporary trends toward realism, helps lead toward a moderate realistic theatre. Wagner
wanted complete illusionism, but wanted the dramatists to be more than a recorder—he wanted
to be of "mythmaker."
True drama, according to Wagner, should be "dipped in the magic founding of music," which
allows greater control over performance than spoken drama. Wagner wanted complete control
over every aspect of the production in order to get a "gesamtkunstwerk," or "master art work."
Because Wagner aimed for complete illusion, even though his operas were not all realistic, many
of his production practices helped lead the way for realism. For instance the auditorium was
darkened, the stage was framed with a double proscenium arch, there were no side boxes and no
center aisle, and all seats were equally good. Further, he forbade musicians to tune in the
orchestra pit, allowed no applause or curtain calls, and strove for historical accuracy in scenery
and costumes. Therefore, even though Wagner’s operas are fantastic and mythical, his attempts
at illusionism helped gain public acceptance for realism.
6.1.3. Beginnings of the Movement: Realism came about partly as a response to these new social / artistic conditions. The
"movement" began in France and by 1860 had some general precepts:
1. truth resides in material objects we perceived to all five senses; truth is verified
through science
2. the scientific method—observation—would solve everything
3. human problems were the highest were home of science
50
Art—according to the realist view—had as its purpose to better mankind.
Drama was to involve the direct observation of human behavior; therefore, there was a thrust to
use contemporary settings and time periods, and it was to deal with everyday life and problems
as subjects.
As already mentioned, realism first showed itself in staging and costuming. Threedimensional
details had been added by 1800. By 1850, theater productions used historically accurate settings
and costumes and details, partly as a result of romantic ideals. But it was harder to get realism
accepted widely.
The Duke of SaxeMeiningen helped unify productions; Richard Wagner wanted theatre to fuse
the emotional and the intellectual, though his operas were highly mythical and fantastic.
6.1.4. Conventions of Realism Theatre characters are believable, everyday types
costumes are authentic
the realist movement in the theatre and subsequent performance style have greatly
influenced 20th century theatre and cinema and its effects are still being felt today
triggered by Stanislavski‘s system of realistic acting at the turn of the 20th century,
America grabbed hold of its own brand of this performance style (American realism) and
acting (method acting) in the 1930s, 40s and 50s (The Group Theatre, The Actors
Studio)
stage settings (locations) and props are often indoors and believable
the ‗box set‘ is normally used for realistic dramas on stage, consisting of three walls
and an invisible ‗fourth wall‘ facing the audience
settings for realistic plays are often bland (deliberately ordinary), dialogue is not
heightened for effect, but that of everyday speech (vernacular)
The drama is typically psychologically driven, where the plot is secondary and primary
focus is placed on the interior lives of characters, their motives, the reactions of others
etc.
51
Realistic plays often see the protagonist (main character) rise up against the odds to
assert him/her self against an injustice of some kind (egg. Nora in Ibsen‘s A Doll‘s
House)
realistic dramas quickly gained popularity because the everyday person in the audience
could identify with the situations and characters on stage
Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (A Doll‘s House, Huda Gabbler) is considered the
father of modern realism in the theatre
6.1.5. Writers of Realism In France, to Playwrights helped popularized the idea of realism but both clung to two inherent
traditional morality and values:
Alexandre Dumas fils (the fils stands for "son," and designates the "illegitimate son of
Alexandre Dumas") – (18241895)
His novel, Camille, was dramatized in 1849. About a "kept woman," the play was written in
prose, and dealt with contemporary life. Eventually, he wrote "thesis plays," about contemporary
social problems.
In Norway: Henrik Ibsen (18281906) is considered to be the father of modern realistic drama.
His plays attacked society’s values and dealt with unconventional subjects within the form of the
wellmade play (causally related).
Ibsen perfected the wellmade play formula; and by using a familiar formula made his plays,
with a very shocking subject matter, acceptable. He discarded soliloquies, asides, etc. Exposition
in the plays was motivated, there were causally related scenes, inner psychological motivation
was emphasized, the environment had an influence on characters’ personalities, and all the things
characters did and all of things the characters used revealed their socioeconomic milieu. He
became a model for later realistic writers.
Among the subjects addressed by Ibsen in his plays are: euthanasia, the role of women, war and
business, and syphilis.
52
George Bernard Shaw (18561950) – in England
Uncommon for his witty humor
Made fun of societies notion using for the purpose of educating and changing. His plays tended
to show the accepted attitude, then demolished that attitude while showing his own solutions.
Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) – in Russia
Chekhov is known more for poetic expiration and symbolism, compelling psychological reality,
people trapped in social situations, hope in hopeless situations. He claimed that he wrote
comedies; others think they are sad and tragic. Characters in Chekhov’s plays seem to have a fate
that is a direct result of what they are. His plays have an illusion of plot lessens.
6.2. NATURALISM While Ibsen was perfecting realism, France was demanding a new drama based
on Darwinism:
1. all forms of life developed gradually from common ancestry,
2. evolution of species is explained by survival of the fittest
The implications of Darwin’s ideas seemed to be that 1) heredity and environment control
people; 2) no person is responsible, since forces are beyond control; 3) the must go to society; 4)
progress is the same as improvement/evolution; it is inevitable and can be hastened by the
application of the scientific method; 5) man is reduced to a natural object.
France had been defeated in the FrancoPrussian war of 187071, ending Napoleon III’s empire,
and making France a Republic. Attitudes shifted: the working man had few privileges, it
appeared, and socialism gained support. By 1900, every major country in Europe had a
Constitution (except Russia); there was therefore a strong interest in the plight of the working
class. Science and technology became major tools for dealing with contemporary problems.
Naturalism became a conscious movement in France in the 1870’s; Emile Zola (18491902) was
an admirer of Comte and an advocate of the scientific method. Literature, he felt, must become
scientific or perish; it should illustrate the inevitable laws of heredity and environment or record
53
case studies. To experiment with the same detachment as a scientist, the writer could become
like a doctor (seeking the cause of disease to cure it, bringing the disease in the open to be
examined), aiming to cure social ills.
Zola’s first major statement came in a novel, Thèrése Raquin, which was dramatized in 1873; his
preface states his views. He also wrote a few treatises about naturalism in the theatre and in the
novel: he wanted art to detect "a scrap of an existence."
Even though Thèrése Raquin failed to adhere to most of the principles of naturalism, except in
the setting (it was mostly a melodrama about murder and retribution), his followers were even
more zealous. The most famous phrase we hear about naturalism is that it should be "a slice of
life." We often tend to forget what a later French writer stated should be included with that
phrase: "… put on the stage with art."
Naturalism, as it was interpreted, almost obliterated the distinction between life and art. As you
can imagine, there is a serious lack of good naturalistic plays and embodying its principles, has it
is virtually impossible to do. Henri Becque (18371899) most nearly captured the essence of
naturalism in two of his plays, The Vultures (1882) and La Parisienne (1885), both of which it
dealt with sordid subjects, were pessimistic and cynical, had no obvious climaxes, had no
sympathetic characters, and progressed slowly to the end. However, Becque refused to comply
with suggested changes when the show was first produced in a conservative theatre, so
naturalism was still not really accepted.
6.2.2. Conventions of Naturalism Theatre in terms of style, naturalism is an extreme or heightened form of realism
as a theatrical movement and performance style, naturalism was shortlived
Stage time equals real time egg. three hours in the theatre equals three hours for the
characters in the world of the play
costumes, sets and props are historically accurate and very detailed, attempting to offer
a photographic reproduction of reality (slice of life‘)
as with realism, settings for naturalistic dramas are often bland and ordinary
naturalistic dramas normally follow rules set out by the Greek philosopher Aristotle,
known as ‗the three unities‘ (of time, place and action)
54
the action of the play takes place in a single location over the time frame of a single day
jumps in time and/or place between acts or scenes is not allowed
playwrights were influenced by naturalist manifestos written by French novelist and
playwright Emile Zola in the preface to Therese Raquan (1867 novel, 1873 play) and
Swedish playwright August Strindberg in the preface to Miss Julie (1888)
naturalism explores the concept of scientific determinism (spawning from Charles
Darwin‘s theory of evolution) – characters in the play are shaped by their circumstances
and controlled by external forces such as hereditary or their social and economic
environment
often characters in naturalistic plays are considered victims of their own circumstance
and this is why they behave in certain ways (they are seen as helpless products of their
environment)
characters are often working class/lower class (as opposed to the mostly middle class
characters of realistic dramas)
naturalistic plays regularly explore sordid subject matter previously considered taboo on
the stage in any serious manner (egg suicide, poverty, prostitution)
6.3. EXERCISE 1. Read “A doll’s house” play, and then write short analysis on element, genres, style and
convention as absurd Drama.
2. Read “The Father” play, and then write short analysis on element, genres, style and
convention as absurd Drama.
55
7. ANALYSIS OF “OEDIPUS THE KING” PLAY The history of the critical reception to Oedipus Rex begins with Aristotle (384−322 B.C.), who
in his Poetics inaugurated the history of formalist and structural analysis of literature, two
important cornerstones for the enterprise of the critical interpretation of literature. In some ways
it can be regarded as the first book of literary criticism, and its significance for the subsequent
study of the works of popular form of entertainment, the festivals surrounding public
performances are rarely state−funded.
Sophocles in general and Oedipus Rex in particular is enormous, due to the exemplary status he
granted the play, as the greatest tragedy ever written. He gave it high praise for its outstanding
fulfillment of the requirements he set out for tragedy, including reversal of situation,
characterization, well−constructed plot, and rationality of action.
Oedipus Rex contains an excellent moment of "reversal" in the scene in which the messenger
comes to tell Oedipus of the death of Polybos, whom he believes to be Oedipus's father.
According to Aristotle, because Oedipus learns from him inadvertently that Polybos is not his
father, "by revealing who he is, he produces the opposite effect." Aristotle also praised the play
for its characterization of the hero, who causes the audience to feel the right mixture of "pity and
fear" while observing his actions. The hero should not be too virtuous, nor should he be evil:
"there remains, then, the character between these two extremes—that of a man who is not
eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by
some error or frailty. He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous—a personage like
Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families."
The plot receives commendation by Aristotle for its ability to stir the emotions of not only its
audience members but, even more significantly, those who merely hear the story: ―he who
hears the tale told will thrill with horror and melt to pity at what takes place." In addition,
Oedipus Rex succeeds in shaping the action in such a way that its ramifications are unknown
until after the event itself occurs: "the deed of horror may be done, but done in ignorance, and
the tie of kinship or friendship be discovered afterwards here, indeed, the incident is outside the
drama proper."
56
Lastly, Aristotle remarks that he prefers the role of the chorus in Sophocles to that of Euripides,
and that the Oedipus Rex excludes from the play proper any irrational elements, such as
Oedipus's ignorance of the mode of Laius's death. This last point is taken up by Voltaire, who
subjected the play to intense questioning on the basis of the improbability of aspects such as this
one.
After Aristotle, the major figures who have analyzed the play include those dramatists, from
antiquity to the present, such as Seneca, Corneille, Dryden, and Hofmannsthal, who respectively
translated the play into Latin, French, English, and German. Poets and dramatists are themselves
acting as critics when they embark on projects of translation, even if they have not given explicit
accounts of how and why they have proceeded. Implicitly, these works ask their readers to
attempt to answer these questions for themselves, and a short list of the variations on Sophocles‘
play should begin to generate such study. In 50 A.D, the Roman writer Seneca, for instance,
decided to add an unseen episode narrated by Creon in which the ghost of Laius identifies his
murderer to Tiresias.
In the 1580s in England the Tudor university dramatist William Gagger sketched out five scenes
for an unfinished version of the play, combining elements of Seneca's Oedipus and his
Phoenician Women with scenes of his own creation; the first original scene is a lament of a
Theban citizen for his dead father and son, to whom he seeks to give a proper burial in the midst
of the plague−ridden city. His Jocasta kills herself because of her sons' fratricidal struggle for
power. In 1659 Corneille prefaced his neo−Classical version of the play with a notice that he has
reduced the number of oracles, left out the graphic description of Oedipus's blinding because of
the presence of ladies in the audience, and added the happy love story of Theseus and Dice in
order to satisfy all attendees. He keeps Seneca's additional scene but makes Laius's speech
vaguer. Dryden, two decades later, self−consciously drew upon Corneille's subplot but changed
its ending to an unhappy one. Like Corneille he laments the fact that audiences demand such
light entertainment accompanying their experience of great tragic drama.
In the next century, translators and commentators in England and France beginning with Voltaire
and including Pierre Brumby, Thomas Maurice, and R. Potter brought unique perspectives to the
play. Voltaire believed the play to be defective in ways that many scholars expected from the
Enlightenment thinker. Following Aristotle and going much further in his skeptical stance, in
57
1716 Voltaire criticized the lack of plausibility in Oedipus's ignorance of the manner of Laius's
death: "that he did not even know whether it was in the country or in town that this murder was
committed, and that he should give neither the least reason nor the least excuse for his ignorance,
I confess that I do not know any terms to express such an absurdity." Another famous criticism
of his concerns the fact that Oedipus, upon learning that the shepherd who knows his origins is
still alive, chooses to consult the oracle "without giving the command to bring before him the
only man who could throw light on the mystery." In contradistinction to Voltaire, in the middle
of the eighteenth century Brumby movingly expressed his satisfaction with the play. Of the
opening scene he wrote: "This is a speaking spectacle, and a picture so beautifully disposed, that
even the attitudes of the priests and of Oedipus express, without the help of words, that one
relates the calamities with which the people are afflicted, and the other, melted at the melancholy
sight, declares his impatience and concern for the long delay of Creon, whom he had sent to
consult the Oracle." Brumby also recognizes that the play's values are pagan rather than
Christian, and specifically he emphasizes the influential classical notion of destiny, after him, the
English translators Thomas Maurice (1779) and R. Potter (1788) did the same.
German authors, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, dominate the reception history of
Oedipus in the nineteenth century.
This is capable of inspiring fear and pity not only in its audience but especially in those who
have merely heard of the story. Following Aristotle's appraisal, many prominent authors
including Voltaire, Frederic Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud reacted at length to the play's themes
of incest and patricide. In the twentieth century, the most influential of these thinkers, Freud,
showed that Oedipus's fate is that of every man; the "Oedipus Complex" is the definitive
parent−child relationship. Throughout history, writers have drawn upon the myth of Oedipus,
and dramatists, composers, and poets, including Pierre Corneille, Fredric von Schiller, Heinrich
von Kleist, William Butler Yeats, Ezra Pound, Igor Stravinsky, and Jean Cocteau, have both
written on, translated, and staged the tragedy; contemporary filmmakers such as Pier Paolo
Gasoline and Woody Allen have directed self−consciously autobiographical versions of Oedipus
Rex.
58
7.1. Author Biography Sophocles was born in Colons, Greece, and c. 496 B.C. and died in Athens c. 406 B.C. The son
of an armor manufacturer, he was a member of a family of considerable rank, was
well−educated, and held a number of significant political positions, in addition to being one of
the best dramatists in his age—an age in which his dramatic peers included the famed
playwrights Euripides and Aeschylus. Sophocles studied under the musician Lampas and under
Aeschylus, later becoming his rival. He lived and wrote during an era known as the Golden Age
of Athens (480−406 B.C.); in 480 and 479 B.C. the city had won the battles of Salamis and
Plataea against Persian invaders, thereby inaugurating what would become a definitive period in
the history of western literature and society, famed for its flourishing political and cultural life.
The Golden Age lasted until Athens's humiliating defeat to Sparta in 404 B.C., after 27 years of
war between the two city−states (commonly referred to as the Peloponnesian War).
In many ways, the dramatic arts stood at the center of the cultural achievements of the Golden
Age, and the popularity and success of the plays of Sophocles were evident in his own day. His
works were produced at the Great Dionysian in Athens, an annual festival honoring the god
Dionysus and culminating in the famous dramatic competitions. Sophocles won first prize over
twenty times in the competition, beginning with Triptolemos in 468 B.C., the first year that
Aeschylus lost the contest to him. Euripides lost to Sophocles in 438 B.C. Unfortunately,
Triptolemos is one among many of Sophocles‘ lost plays. He is purported to have written over
one hundred tragedies, yet only seven have survived to the modern era; Ajax (c. 450 B.C.);
Antigone (c. 442 B.C.); Ichneutai (translated as The Trackers,, c. 440 B.C.); The Trichinae (c.
440−430 B.C.); Oedipus The King (c. 430−426 B.C.); Electra (c. 425−510 B.C.); Philoctetes
(409 B.C.); and Oedipus at Colonus (c. 405 B.C.).
While there is some dispute among scholars as to their actual relationship, three of Sophocles‘
surviving works are thought to comprise a trilogy. Known as the Theban Trilogy the plays are
Antigone, Oedipus the King, and Oedipus at Colons. All of these plays draw upon the ancient
story of Oedipus, King of Thebes. The sources for Sophocles‘ version of this legendary tale are
thought to include Book XI of Homer's Odyssey, two ancient epic poems entitled the Oedipodeia
and the Thebes, and four plays by Aeschylus, including seven against Thebes.
59
In addition to being a dramatist and a public official, Sophocles also was a priest of the god
Amynos, a healer. He married a woman named Nicostrata and had two sons, Iophon and
Agathon.
7.2. Over all Oedipus Rex play analysis on element and
convention Act I
Prologue Oedipus Rex begins outside King Oedipus's palace, where despondent beggars and a
priest have gathered and brought branches and wreaths of olive leaves. Oedipus enters and asks
the people of Thebes why they pray and lament, since apparently they have come together to
petition him with an unknown request. The Priest speaks on their behalf, and Oedipus assures
them that he will help them. The Priest reports that Thebes has been beset with horrible
calamities—famine, fires, and plague have all caused widespread suffering and death among
their families and animals, and their crops have all been destroyed. He beseeches Oedipus, whom
he praises for having solved the riddle of the Sphinx (an action which justified his succession to
King Laius, as Jocasta husband and as king) to cure the city of its woes. Oedipus expresses his
profound sympathy and announces that he sent Creon, the Queen's brother, to Delphi to receive
the Oracle of Apollo, in order to gain some much−needed guidance.
Creon arrives and Oedipus demands, against Creon's wishes, that he report the news in front of
the gathered public. Creon reports that the gods caused the plague as a reaction against the
murder of their previous king, Laius, and that they want the Thebans to "drive out pollution
sheltered in our land"; in other words, to find the murderer and either kill or exile him (Laius had
been killed on the roadside by a highwayman). Oedipus vows to root out this evil. In the next
scene, the chorus of Theban elders calls upon the gods Apollo, Athena, and Artemis to save them
from the disaster.
Act I Declaring his commitment to finding and punishing Laius's murderer, Oedipus says that he
has sent for Tiresias, the blind prophet. After much pleading and mutual antagonism, Oedipus
makes Tiresias say what he knows: that it was Oedipus who killed Laius. Outraged at the
accusations Oedipus calls him a "fortuneteller" and a "deceitful beggar−priest." Both are
60
displaying what in Greek is called orge, or anger, towards each other. Oedipus suspects the seer
of working on Creon's behalf (Creon, as Laius's brother, was and still is a potential successor to
the throne). Tiresias thinks the king mad for not believing him and for being blind to his fate (not
to mention ignorant of his true parentage). Oedipus then realizes that he does not know who his
real mother is. Tiresias is led out while saying that Oedipus will be discovered to be a brother as
well as a father to his children, a son as well as a husband to the same woman, and the killer of
his father. He exits and the Chorus enters, warning of the implications of the decisive, oracular
charges against Oedipus.
Scene 1: Oedipus, Priest, Citizens of Thebes
Oedipus asks the citizens why they come to him begging for help. A priest explains that a
disastrous disease is spreading over the city destroying crops and cattle as well as people.
Oedipus has sent Creon to ask advice from Apollo and he returns as they speak. He tells them
that Thebes is being ‗polluted‘ (made dirty) by a sinful act because the person who killed king
Laius, is still in the city. Until he is found and punished Thebes will continue to suffer.
Cadmus was the person who built Thebes. The Greek audience would know the story and, by
mentioning his name so early on, Sophocles tells them that the play is in Thebes and the main
story concerns the royal descendants of Cadmus; the audience would know that Oedipus was, in
fact, the son of Laius and so everyone is very tenseas they wait to see how and when Oedipus
himself will find out the truth.
The royal family is as follows:
First King Cadmus
Second King Polydorus (son)
Third King Labdacus (son)
Fourth King Laius (son)
Oedipus seems to be a caring king, genuinely concerned for his people. He talks to them as
though they were his own children and promises to do everything in his power to find the killer
of Laius.
61
The dramatic tension increases for the audience who know that he himself is the man he is
seeking. This play is full of dramatic irony and it is important you appreciate what this term
means. Dramatic irony happens when the audience know details which the actor does not know;
the actor speaks and his words have two meanings a simple meaning and a more complicated
one known to the audience and not the speaker. For example, Oedipus says that in taking revenge
for Laius ‗death he is acting in his own interests; he means that he is acting in his own interests
because the same killer may turn on him. The double meaning is that the audience know that he
is acting in his own interests because he is, in fact, the killer.
The Sphinx was a creature which had the body of an animal and face of a woman. It terrorized
the city and gave the people of Thebes riddle, promising that it would not leave until it was
solved. The riddle was: What walks on four legs in the morning, two in the afternoon and three
in the evening? Oedipus had solved it by guessing that it meant aman:who crawls on all fours
when he is a baby, walks on two legs when he is a young man, and uses a stick as a third leg
when he is old. The people of Thebes were so grateful to him for freeing them from the Sphinx
they made him the king.
Creon is the brother of Jocasta, Oedipus ‗wife. He has gone to the oracle of Apollo to ask for
help. This temple to Apollo at Delphi was famous in the ancient world and many people went
there to find out what would happen to them in the future, as Apollo was god of prophecy
(predicting the future).We can see from this scene how important is was for the Greeks to have
the gods on their side and religion was important in everyday life with prayer and sacrifice.
They feared and respected the gods and felt they controlled the forces of nature. They thought it
wrong to compare a person to a god as this would make the god seek revenge for a human who
was arrogant enough to think that he was on the same level as a god. This is why the priest is
careful to tell Oedipus that they think he is a very wise man but not on a par with a god. If a
person did directly compare himself to a god this was an act of hubris (extreme arrogance) and
resulted eventually in his being punished. The eye witness to the murder of Laius is introduced in
this scene. He will play a key role later on but for now all we are told is that he said robbers
killed Laius.
62
Questions
1. Who was Cadmus and why is he mentioned so early in the play?
2. What opinion do you get of Oedipus from what he says and does in this scene?
3. Describe in your own words the disaster which has struck the city.
4. The priest says that although Oedipus is an excellent man he is not equal to a god. Explain
why He adds that Oedipus is not equal to a god.
5. Give two reasons why the priest wants Oedipus to help the people.
6. What has Oedipus done about the situation so far?
7. Explain what Creon says is the reason for this disaster.
8. Why had the people not held a public inquiry into Laius ‗death at the time?
Act II
Creon expresses great desire to prove his innocence to Oedipus, who continues to assert that
Creon has been plotting to usurp the throne. Creon denies the accusations, saying he is quite
content and would not want the cares and responsibilities that come with being king. Oedipus
calls for his death. Jocasta, having heard their quarrel, enters and tries to pacify them, and the
Chorus calls for proof of Creon's guilt before Oedipus punishes him. Jocasta reminds Oedipus of
Apollo's oracle and also of the way Laius died. She recounts the story as it was told to her by a
servant who was there at the crossroads where a charioteer and an old man attacked a man, who
in turn killed them. Hearing the tale, Oedipus realizes that he was the murderer and asks to
consult the witness, the shepherd, who is sent for. The Chorus expresses its trust in the gods and
prays to Heaven for a restoration of faith in the oracle.
The original assumption is too unreasonable, and this fairytale quality affects and infects the
plot. Aristotle‘s apology is that the irrationality is outside of and precedes the main action. That
may serve as an apology for Oedipus‘s ignorance of wellknown facts about the Thebes in which
he had been King for years and about the former husband of the woman he had married. But the
fundamental folklore or fairytale irrationality is irremediable. In fact the underlying thought is
63
not to be taken seriously. It is merely an answer to a primitive riddle: what is the worst thing that
could happen to a man? Why, to kill his father, and marry his mother!
Scene 2: Oedipus, Chorus, Tiresias
Oedipus announces that he is looking for information about the killer of Laius. He promises that
if the killer owns up he will only send him away but if he does not, he and anyone trying to
protect him, will be driven out of the city. He will not be allowed to have anything to do with
any one; he will be driven out publicly with no friends or means of support. The Chorus advises
Oedipus to listen to the words of Tiresias, a respected prophet, and Oedipus greets him with
courtesy, asking for any information he can give him. When Tiresias seems reluctant to tell what
he knows, Oedipus angrily accuses him of having something to do with the murder himself. This
makes Tiresias openly accuse Oedipus. Shocked and enraged, Oedipus goes on to accuse Creon
of the murder, accusing him of plotting with Tiresias and trying to steal his throne. Tiresias
seems to Oedipus and to the Chorus to be speaking in riddles when he talks of a son who is also
a husband and a father who is also a brother.
Oedipus ‗speeches in this scene are full of dramatic irony; he describes himself as an outsider to
Thebes(the audience know he was born there) and says he will fight to find Laius ‗killer as if he
were doing this for his real father (the audience know he is his real father). The idea of the
relationship of men and religion/gods is continued here with purification being necessary. The
fact that the murderer had not been punished was seen as polluting or putting abstain/curse on the
city. The only way to clean the city is to find the murderer. People today would think this act was
more of a legal than a religious one. This shows how much the Greeks linked the actions of the
gods with the actions of people and relied on the gods for making sure evil was punished. Here,
Oedipus shows respect for the gods when he points out that a human being cannot force a god to
give him information. Tiresias, the blind prophet, is a highly respected character, who knows
what the gods want and can predict what will happen to people. From the entry of Tiresias,
Sophocles continually talks about seeing grand being blind in this play; Tiresias, though
physically blind, can see the truth; Oedipus though physically able to see, is blind to the truth;
later on, when Oedipus finds out the truth he chooses to blind himself physically. The speeches
here are examples of dramatic irony as the audience know what he will do from the beginning of
the play.
64
Oedipus thinks that because Tiresias does not want to tell him bad news he is guilty and accuses
him of having a hand in the murder. When Tiresias points out he has no real motive for killing
Laius, Oedipus jumps to the conclusion that Creon had put him up to it because he was jealous of
Oedipus and wanted to steal his throne. He thinks that this was why Creon had asked to go and
consult Apollo personally. Oedipus loses his temper and insults Tiresias and we see another side
of his character. He seems arrogant and cruel, assuming that he is right and he refuses to listen to
others.
He only stops for a moment when Tiresias mentions his parents. This seems to strike a chord
with him (which he explains later on to Jocasta) and he hesitates, asking Tiresias to tell him more
about his parents. However, he cannot understand what Tiresias means and the Chorus are
unclear too, so Tiresias leaves, with Oedipus convinced that he and Creon are plotting together to
get rid of him by making up this accusation.
Questions
1. What will happen to the killer of Laius if he confesses quickly?
2. What will happen to him, or any one shielding him, if he does not come forward of his own
Accord?
3. Give an example of dramatic irony from this scene, explaining why it is dramatic irony.
4. Who do the Chorus advise Oedipus to consult and why
Unanswered Questions
As to the probability of the story of the play, one could ask some awkward questions. For
example: Why did the servant of Laius give the false report of ―a band of brigands‖? Why did
he say nothing when he saw Oedipus in Thebes but ask to go to the country? Why was he treated
so well, when he had run away and left his master and fellowservants on the road? One may
answer these questions thus: The servant suspected the truth all the time, beginning with the
encounter on the road, for he knew that the son of Laius did not die, and recognized him in this
young man who looked like Laius. The servant was loyal to his protégé, and perhaps disliked
Laius, of whom no good has ever been told, here or elsewhere; the story of brigands protected
65
both him and Oedipus. These answers are plausible, but are we intended to work them out, or is
there even time to consider them in the rapid progress of the action?
Some More Such Questions
There are other points of verisimilitude. For instance, why had Oedipus never gone even
superficially into the question of Laius‘s murder? Or again, how could Jocasta know nothing at
all about the stranger she married? Sophocles himself raised a couple of questions which he did
not answer. Why, if Tiresias was wise and inspired, positively omniscient, did he not answer the
Sphinx? Why, after the death of Laius and the arrival of Oedipus, did Tiresias say nothing about
the connection between the two events? Creon‘s answer to this is wise and temperate: ―I do not
know. And where I have no idea I prefer to keep quiet.‖ But it does not take us far. It may be,
rather, that Oedipus is the man who must find, and condemn, and punish himself. Likewise it
was not for Tiresias to solve the riddle of the Sphinx. The Sphinx is there for Oedipus to answer.
To say he was ―fated‖ is to overstate it with prejudice toward the grand designs of heaven; but it
is a part of the pattern or storytyke, which in Greek does not mean ―fate‖ or ―chance‖ or
―fortune‖ so strictly as it means ―contact‖ or ―coincidence,‖ or the way things are put
together.
Act III
Jocasta prays to Apollo to restore Oedipus's sanity, since he has been acting strange since
hearing the manner in which Laius's died. A messenger tells her that King Polybos (the man
Oedipus believes to be his father) has died and that the people of Isthmus want Oedipus to rule
over them. Oedipus hopes this news means that the oracle is false (he hasn't killed his father
since Polybos has died of old age), but he still fears that he is destined to marry his mother. The
messenger tells him that Polybos was not his father and that he, a shepherd, had been handed the
child Oedipus by another shepherd, one of Laius's men. Jocasta tries to intervene and stop the
revelations, but Oedipus welcomes the news.
Voltaire’s View
Voltaire expressed the following opinion in this connection: ―it is already contrary to
probability that Oedipus, who has regarded for such a long time, should not know how his
66
predecessor died. But that he should not even know whether it was in the country or in the city
that this murder was committed, and that he should not give the slightest reason or the slightest
excuse for his ignorance—I confess that I know of no word to express such an absurdity. It is,
one might say, a fault of the subject and not of the author; as if it were not up to the author to
correct his subject when it is defective!‖
Voltaire goes on to say: ―But what is still more astonishing is that Oedipus, when he learns that
the Theban herdsman is still alive, does not dream of simply having him sought out; he amuses
himself by pronouncing curses and consulting oracles, without commanding that the only man
who could enlighten him be brought before him. The Chorus itself, which is so intent on seeing
an end to the misfortunes of Thebes, and which gives Oedipus constant advice, does not advise
him to question this witness to the death of the late King; it asks him only to send for Tiresias.‖
Possible Symbolic Meaning
It may be supposed that Oedipus represents human suffering while the gods symbolize the
―universe of circumstance as it is.‖ The play then becomes a dramatic expression of the universe
of circumstance as it is and of the suffering of man.
Lack of Universality in the Play
But to argue thus is merely one more way of smuggling significance into the play, and of
showing that the play is universal. The action of this play is in reality exceptional. Oedipus in his
peculiar destiny is a freak. He is a man selected out of millions to undergo this stunning fate; that
is why the story is so fascinating. He stands, because of the extreme rarity of his destiny, outside
the common lot of mankind. And so the special disaster that befalls him is a thing quite apart
from the universe of circumstance as it is. The gods who really do stand for circumstance are
very much milder beings. That is why it is so misleading to reduce this play to the normal.
The Lesson of the Play
Oedipus Rex shows the humbling of a great and prosperous man by the gods. This treatment is
not deserved by Oedipus. It is not a punishment for insolence, nor in the last resort is it due to
any fault of judgment or character in the man. The gods display their power because they must.
67
But since they display it, we may draw a lesson. This lesson is stated at the end of the play in the
comment by the Chorus: ―And, being mortal, think of that last day of death, which all must see,
and speak of no man‘s happiness till, without sorrow, he has passed the goal of life.‖
Act V
A second messenger reports that Jocasta has just committed suicide, having realized that she was
married to her son and thus had given birth to his children. He also reports that the king,
suffering intensely upon hearing the news of his identity, blinded himself with the Queen's
brooches. Oedipus has also requested that he be shown to the people of Thebes and then exiled;
he comes out, bewildered and crying, asking for shelter from his painful memory, which cannot
be removed as easily his eyes could be.
In the darkness of his blindness he wishes he were dead and feels the prophetic weight of the
oracle. His blindness will allow him to avoid the sight of those whom he was destined to wrong
and toward whom he feels immense sorrow and guilt. He asks Creon to lead him out of the
country, to give Jocasta a proper burial, and to take care of his young daughters, Antigone (who
comes to play a central role in the play named after her) and Siemen. In an extremely moving
final moment with his children (who, he reminds himself, are also his siblings), Oedipus hears
them and asks to hold their hands for the last time. He tells them they will have difficult lives and
will be punished by men for sins they did not commit; for this reason he implores Thebes to pity
them. He asks Creon again to exile him, and in his last speech he expresses regret at having to
depart from his beloved children. The Chorus ends the play by using Oedipus's story to illustrate
the famous moral that one should not judge a man's life until it is over.
Oedipus, a Personification of Human Suffering
To know oneself is for Sophocles is to know man‘s powerlessness. But it is also to know the
victorious majesty of suffering humanity. The agony of every Sophocles character is an essential
element in his nature. The strange fusion of character and fate is most movingly and
mysteriously expressed in the greatest of his heroes, Oedipus. Sophocles returned once again to
his character in Oedipus at Colonus, when Oedipus, a blind man, begs his way through the
world, led by his daughter Antigone, another of Sophocles‘ most beloved figures. From the first,
68
the tragic king who was to bear the weight of the whole world‘s suffering was almost a symbolic
figure. He was suffering humanity personified.
Act IV
The shepherd enters and tells Oedipus, after a great deal of resistance, that he is Laius's son and
that he had had him taken away to his own country by the messenger so as to avoid his fate. The
chorus bewails the change in Oedipus from revered and fortunate ruler to one who has plunged
into the depths of wretchedness.
Freud’s Interpretation of the Myth and the Play
Oedipus did all he could to avoid the fate prophesied by the oracle, and he blinded himself in
selfpunishment on discovering that in ignorance he had committed both these crimes. The play
traces the gradual discovery of Oedipus‘s deed, and brings it to light by prolonged inquiry which
has a certain resemblance to the process of psychoanalysis. In the dialogue the deluded mother
wife, Jocasta, resists the continuation of the inquiry. She points out that many men have in their
dreams mated with their mothers, but that dreams deserve no attention. To us today dreams are
of great importance. The reader reacts to the play as though by selfanalysis he had detected the
Oedipus complex in himself, as though he had recognized the will of the gods and the oracle as
glorified disguises of his own unconscious. The reader feels as if he remembered in himself the
wish to do away with his father and in his place to marry his mother, and must abhor the thought.
The dramatist‘s words seem to him to mean: ―In vain do you deny that you are answerable; in
vain do you proclaim that you have resisted these evil designs. You are guilty, because you could
not eradicate them; they still survive unconsciously in you.‖ And there is psychological truth in
this; even though man has repressed his evil desires into his unconscious and would then gladly
say to himself that he is no longer answerable for them, he is yet compelled to feel his
responsibility in the form of a sense of guilt for which he can perceive no foundation.
The Flaw in the Freudian Interpretation
Superficially, the play seems to confirm Freud‘s theory. But if Freud‘s interpretation is right we
should expect the myth to tell us that Oedipus met Jocasta without knowing that she was his
mother, fell in love with her, and then killed his father, again unknowingly. But there is no sign
69
whatsoever in the myth that Oedipus is attracted by or falls in love with Jocasta. The only reason
we are given for Oedipus‘s marriage to Jocasta is that she as it were, goes with the throne. Are
we to believe that a myth with an incestuous relationship between mother and son would entirely
omit the element of attraction between the two?
The Son’s Rebellion against the Father’s Authority
A more convincing interpretation would be to say that the myth (and therefore the play) should
be regarded as a symbol not of the incestuous love between mother and son but of the rebellion
of the son against the authority of the father in the patriarchal family. From this point of view,
the marriage of Oedipus and Jocasta is only a secondary element; the marriage is only an
evidence of the victory of the son who takes the father‘s place with all its privileges.
Champion of Traditional Religion
Sophocles in this play supports the traditional religion against contemporary attacks. Apollo and
his ministers are shown as justified, while the skepticism of Jocasta and Oedipus is condemned.
Criticism of oracles was becoming common at the time. In such an atmosphere Sophocles wrote
this play to defend what was for him, as for Socrates one of the basic facts of religion.
The Evil Resulting From Incest
Among many peoples, breaches of marriage laws and other sexual offences have been thought to
be productive of disastrous consequences. Adultery has often been regarded as being destructive
of the fruits of the earth. Ancient Greeks and Roman perhaps had similar notions of the wasting
effect of incest. According to Sophocles, the land of Thebes suffered from blight, from
pestilence, and from the sterility both of women and of cattle under the reign of Oedipus, who
had unknowingly killed his father and married his mother. The Delphic oracle declared that the
only way to restore the prosperity of the country was to banish the sinner from it, as if his mere
presence withered plants, animals, and women. No doubt these public calamities were attributed
in great part to the guilt of parricide which rested on Oedipus, but much of the evil must have
been thought to be due to his incest with his mother.
70
The Value of Guiltless Suffering
There are numerous religious myths that depend on guiltless suffering. The misery of a
blameless man has been thought somehow to lighten the burden for the rest of mankind. The
power of the Book of Job, and also of Prometheus Bound, Antigone, Hamlet, etc. seems to
require a similar consciousness of innocence on the part of the sufferer. Christ was thought to be
entirely undeserving of the humiliation, pain, and public execution—that is obvious. He also
found these experiences difficult and painful in the extreme, in spite of his divinity. And the fact
that Christ suffered thus though he deserved nothing but good is believed to reprieve the rest of
mankind from guilt. Others are more innocent because of his having suffered innocently.
The Gods Not Justified
Another question to consider is whether Sophocles in this play tries to justify the ways of God to
man. The answer to this question is ―no‖ if ―to justify‖ means to explain in terms of human
justice. If human justice is the standard, then nothing can excuse the gods. But that does not
mean that Sophocles intended the play to be an attack on the gods. In fact it is pointless to look
for any message or meaning in this play. According to a critic, A.J.A. Wedlock, ―there is no
meaning in Oedipus Rex; there is merely the terror of coincidence.‖ G.M. Kirkwood, takes a
similar view: ―Sophocles‖, he says, ―has no theological pronouncements to make and no
points of criticism to score.‖ Both these opinions come close to saying that the gods are merely
agents in a traditional story which Sophocles, a ―pure artist‖, uses for dramatic purposes without
raising the religious issue or drawing any moral. The text of the play seems at first sight to
support this view. After the catastrophe no one on the stage says a word either in justification of
the gods or in criticism of them. Oedipus says: ―These things were Apollo‖—and that is all. Nor
is there any reason why we should always be looking for a message from a work of art. The true
function of an artist, as Dr. Johnson said, is to enlarge our sensibility.
Sophocles’ Religious Opinions
And yet it is possible to infer from the plays of Sophocles the opinions or religious views of the
author. We can, for instance, safely say that (i) Sophocles did not believe that the gods were in
any human sense ―just‖ and (ii) he did always believe that the gods existed and that man should
revere them.
71
Disbelief in Divine Justice, and the Need to Revere the Gods
The first of these opinions is supported by the implicit evidence of Oedipus Rex, while the
second opinion is supported by at least one passage in this play. The celebrated choral ode about
the decline of prophecy and the threat to religion was of course suggested by the scene with
Creon which precedes it; but it contains generalizations which have little apparent relevance
either to Oedipus or to Creon. The question which the Chorus seem to be asking is this: ―If
Athens loses faith in religion, what significance is there in tragic drama, which exists as a part of
the service of the gods?‖ In short, while Sophocles did not claim that the gods were in any human
sense just he yet held that they were entitled to human worship. Nor should we think these two
opinions to be incompatible. Disbelief in divine justice as measured by human standards can
perfectly well be associated with deep religious feeling. Sophocles would have agree that men
find some things unjust, other things just, but that in the eyes of God all things are beautiful and
good and just. There is an objective worldorder which man must respect, but which he cannot
hope fully to understand.
“Hamartia” or Tragic Error
Aristotle used the word ―hamartia‖ to mean simply a mistake, but critics have always tended to
interpret ―hamartia‖ as a moral weakness or sin. Aristotle‘s ideal form of tragedy is simply one
in which the destruction of the hero or heroine is caused by some false step taken in ignorance.
This false step may be either a crime like Clytemnestra‘s or a mere miscalculation like
Dayanara‘s. It is only a craving for poetic justice that interprets Aristotle‘s view to mean that the
tragic disaster is due to a moral defect or a sin. Yet even Aristotle felt that the misfortunes of the
absolutely righteous characters were too shocking for the tragic stage.
Representing the Ways of Life, Not Justifying Them
Sophocles is concerned not to justify life‘s ways but to show them. He finds no difficulty in
representing even the downfall of a man doomed before his birth, in the very moment he was
begotten. Oedipus has a pride, a hot temper, an imperiousness, that serve to make us dread his
fall; but it is significant that his fall is not caused by these faults. The ruin of Dejanira comes
only from her excessive trustfulness; Antigone‘s from her unflinching sense of duty. Still less in
72
Euripides is there any justifying of the ways of God; often they are openly denounced, and the
tragic error is sometimes not moral, sometimes absent altogether.
Tragedy at its Best
At its best, tragedy is a story of human blindness leading human effort to defeat itself—a tragedy
of error. The hamartia is the tragic error; the peripatetic, its fatal working to a result the opposite
of that intended; the anagnorisis, the recognition of the truth. The error may or may not be moral.
And its dramatic importance is not based on any conception of life‘s justice, but on the purely
artistic and logical consideration that it is neater, formally, that calamities should begin at home
the universe may proceed by law: but it seems heedless of justice. For its laws are those of cause
and effect, not of right and wrong. Similarly in the theatre there may or may not be justice, but
there must be law if we are to feel that inevitability which a play needs in order to convince. And
the peculiar virtue of the tragedy of error is that it is convincing in its logic, neat in its form,
poignant in its irony. It remains not the only kind of tragedy; but, as Aristotle says, the best.
Oedipus Legend
The Greek audience, unlike a modern one, knew the plot of the play before they came to see it.
This is because dramatists chose to write plays based on popular legends and stories passed
down from father to son. A Greek audience, therefore, would be fascinated not by what was
happening but by how the playwright showed the story to them. So that you will feel like one of
the Greek audience, here are some details of the legend of Oedipus.
The story so far . . .
Laius, king of Thebes, is told by Apollo (god of predicting the future) that his baby son will grow
up to kill him. To avoid this happening, he pins his son‘s ankles together and gives him to a
shepherd to leave on a mountainside to die. This will seem very cruel to a modern reader but
leaving babies to die was quite common in ancient Greece, especially if the baby was a girl or if
the baby was disabled in any way.
The Theban shepherd feels sorry for the baby and decides to give him to a Corinthian shepherd,
who is on his way there. The Corinthian shepherd gives the baby to theking (Polybus) and
73
Queen (Merope) who have no children and who bring him up as their own son. They call him
Oedipus or ‗swollen foot‘ (in Greek) because of the injury to his ankles caused by being pinned
To gather. When Oedipus is a young man he hears rumors which lead him to go and ask Apollo
for information about his parents. When he is told by the priestess that he is destined to kill his
father and marry his mother, he leaves Corinth immediately so that he cannot even accidentally
– harm the people he thinks are his real parents. On his travels he comes to a crossroads and
there meets an old man and some servants. The old man whips Oedipus and tells him to get out
of the way; there is a fight and Oedipus angrily kills the old man and all but one of the servants
he has with him. He then makes his way to Thebes which is terrified because of a monstrous
Sphinx (a beast with the head of a woman). She has set a riddle and refuses to leave until
someone solves it. Oedipus manages to solve it and the people are so grateful they make him
king. He marries queen Jocasta, the widow of king Laius who was murdered by bandits on the
road, and he becomes a new father for her children. He is an intelligent and caring ruler who puts
his people first. He is widely respected and Thebes seems to Classical Studies Support Materials:
Oedipus the King be doing well until one day a mysterious disease destroys cattle, making crops
die, causing pregnant women to have babies born dead, spreading a fatal infectious disease all
over the city. The people are in a panic and turn to the gods and to Oedipus.
The Plot
Sophocles creates suspense in this play by having his audience ‗in‘ on what will happen. They
want events not to happen, and are helpless to stop what must happen. The end of the play has
been described as a time bomb waiting to explode and shows the way Sophocles uses the play to
create tension and suspense all the way through. Firstly, he does this by allowing Oedipus to find
out small clues which he pieces together as the play proceeds. The trail begins when Jocasta
mentions that Laius was killed at a place where three roads meet. This leads Oedipus to ask for
more details about Laius ‗death. The mention of this place stirs up a memory for him of killing a
man at such place after leaving Corinth when the oracle told him he was destined to kill his
father and marry his mother. This makes him send for the Theban shepherd, the surviving
eyewitness. Tension mounts as the Corinthian shepherd comes in and tells Oedipus that Polybus
is dead. Oedipus, though upset, is relieved that the oracle he heard cannot now come true but still
74
is worried about marrying his mother. The Corinthian tells him not to worry as he knows that
Polybus and Merope are not his real parents. As Oedipus and Jocasta feel relief, tension mounts
for the audience who know that the Corinthian messenger will tell him that the Theban shepherd
they have sent for is the same man who gave baby Oedipus to the Corinthian. The audience, like
Jocasta in scene five wish that Oedipus does not find out the truth. Suspense is brought to a
climax in scene six when the shepherd tells him that Laius and Jocasta are his real parents.
Sophocles creates an interesting plot in this play because the criminal detects himself. In scene
one Oedipus describes what he will do to the murderer and then in scene six carries out his threat
on himself. Sophocles writes the play so that we see Oedipus, not just as a tragic person in his
own right, but as an example of what can happen to all of us. Other characters in the play, like
Oedipus, do things for admirable motives which cause disaster. Jocasta tells him about the
murder of Laius to put his mind at rest about fortunetellers this makes him realize that he
might have killed Laius and leads to her own death. The Corinthian shepherd gladly tells
Oedipus that Polybus and Merope are not his real parents to put his mind at rest this makes the
Theban shepherd tell him Laius and Jocasta are his real parents. The Corinthian shepherd, who
had hoped for a reward of money is rewarded by knowing he caused great pain.
The Theban shepherd, who feels sorry for Oedipus and lets him live, is punished because he was
the eyewitness to the death of Laius and also sees the killer become king; this means he has to
go away in case the killer recognizes him. His reward for kindness, therefore, is banishment.
These minor tragedies are all part of the major one and show Sophocles ‘message that life can be
cruel, even to innocent people, but that things do not happen just by chance there is a pattern
worked out in advance by the gods which human beings cannot change, whatever the
Themes
Oedipus Rex is the story of a king of Thebes upon whom a hereditary curse is placed and who
therefore has to suffer the tragic consequences of fate. During a time of plague, fires, and other
forms of decimation, Oedipus decides to take action to restore life and prosperity to his kingdom,
only to discover through this quest that his identity is not what he thought. He learns that he has
killed his father, married his mother, and had children with her; his wife−mother Jocasta kills
75
herself, and Oedipus blinds himself and goes into exile; his uncle Creon becomes King of
Thebes.
Knowledge and Ignorance
Oedipus's desire to gain knowledge that will help to rid Thebes of its pollution is evident from
the beginning of the play. When the priest comes to him to ask for help, Oedipus has already
begun the process of searching for solutions; he has sent Creon to Delphi to learn from Apollo
what measures should be taken. When Creon enters, Oedipus begins questioning him intensely,
declares a search for Laius's murderer, and asks for Tiresias‘s assistance as well as that of others;
when a member of the chorus offers information Oedipus says, "Tell me. I am interested in all
reports." His strong belief that the search for the truth will lead to a successful cleansing of
Thebes is juxtaposed with the reluctance on the part of other characters to deliver their
knowledge. Most fear retribution, since their knowledge points to Oedipus as the source of
Thebes's troubles. This belief should also be understood in the context of Oedipus's ignorance
and final, tragic discovery of his identity; by demanding that others tell him all they know he is
forced to confront the hideous facts of his patricide and incest.
Choices and Consequences
Another theme in the play is the distinction between the truthfulness of oracles and prophecies
of the gods (fate), as opposed to man's ability to influence his life's trajectory through his own
actions (free will or self−determinism). While arguments exist regarding the predominance of
these schools of thought, Oedipus Rex emphasizes the eventual and tragic triumph of the former
over the latter. Despite his best efforts to be a good and wise king and to substantiate his claims
about the evil machinations of Creon and Tiresias, fate works against him and finally shows that
he was wrong to believe in a conspiracy. For example, when Oedipus wishes to punish Creon, he
expresses to a member of the chorus his intention to shape his policy in forcefully
self−determining language: "Would you have me stand still, hold my peace, and let this man win
everything, through my inaction?" Again, Oedipus struggles against the oracle that predicts his
hand in his father's death and boldly asserts that it is wrong when Polybos's death is reported:
"Polios/ has packed the oracles off with him underground. They are empty words." But the
oracle remains true, and Oedipus is helpless in the face of its powerful prophecy.
76
Public vs. Private
Life the extent to which Oedipus desires public disclosure of information is particularly striking
in the play's first scenes. He asks the priest and Creon to speak publicly about the troubles of
Thebes and to offer possible clues and solutions in front of his subjects, in spite of their
reservations. Creon asks: "Is it your pleasure to hear me with all these/ Gathered around us? I am
prepared to speak, /But should we not go in?'' Oedipus consistently refuses to hide any
knowledge he will receive and wants his informers to adopt a similar attitude. When Tiresias
refuses to answer Oedipus's call and later resists revealing the king's dark truth, Oedipus grows
impatient, hostile, and abusive. Tiresias would like to keep his information to himself, as will the
shepherd in a later scene, but Oedipus will hear nothing of it. In addition, Jocasta is inclined to
evade or gloss over the truth as it is about to be revealed from various people. She views the
matter a private one and tries to protect Oedipus from the disastrous disclosures. Oedipus,
however, refuses to tolerate a world in which secrets exist. He publicly learns the truth—at the
expense of his sanity and happiness. His desire for a Theban society that fosters truth and
openness is an admirable one, one that albeit contributes to his demise.
The Genre of Greek Tragic Drama
Ever since Aristotle's high praise regarding its structure and characterization in his Poetics,
Oedipus Rex has been considered one of the most outstanding examples of tragic drama. In
tragedy, a protagonist inspires in his audience the twin emotions of pity and fear. Usually a
person of virtue and status, the tragic hero can be a scapegoat of the gods or a victim of
circumstances. Their fate (often death or exile) establishes a new and better social order. Not
only does it make the viewer aware of human suffering, tragedy illustrates the manner in which
pride (hubris) can topple even the strongest of characters. It is part of the playwright's intention
that audiences will identify with these fallen heroes−and possibly rethink the manner in which
they live their lives. Theorists of tragedy, beginning with Aristotle, have used the term catharsis
to capture the sense of purgation and purification that watching a tragedy yield in a viewer: relief
that they are not in the position of the protagonist and awareness that one slip of fate could place
them in such circumstances.
77
Structure
The dramatic structure of Greek drama is helpfully outlined by Aristotle in the twelfth book of
Poetics. In this classical tragedy, a Prologue shows Oedipus consulting the priest who speaks for
the Theban elders, the first choral ode or Parodos is performed, four acts are presented and
followed by odes called stasimons, and in the Exodos, or final act, the fate of Oedipus is
revealed.
Staging
Tragedies in fifth−century Athens were performed in the marketplace, known in Greek as the
agora. The dramatic competitions of the Great Dionysia, Athens's annual cultural and religious
festival, were held in a structure made of wood near the Acropolis. The chorus performed on a
raised stage. There were no female actors, and it is still unknown (though much speculated upon)
whether women attended these performances. It is also noteworthy that the performance space
was near the Priyx, the area in which the century's increasingly heated and rhetorically
sophisticated political debates took place—a feature of Athenian cultural life that suggests the
pervasive nature of spectacles of polished and persuasive verbal expression.
The Chorus the Greek chorus,
Like the genre of tragedy itself, is reputed to be a remnant of the ritualistic and ceremonial
origins of Greek tragedy. Sophocles added three members of the chorus to Aeschylus's twelve. In
terms of form, the choral ode has a tripartite structure which bears traces of its use as a song and
dance pattern. The three parts are called, respectively, the strophe, the antistrophe, and the epode;
their metrical structures vary and are usually very complex. If the strophe established the dance
pattern, in the antistrophe the dancers trace backwards the same steps, ending the ode in a
different way with the epode.
With respect to content, the choral odes bring an additional viewpoint to the play, and often this
perspective is broader and more socio−religious than those offered by individual characters; it is
also conservative and traditional at times, potentially in an effort to reflect the views of its
society rather than the protagonist. The Chorus's first set of lyrics in Oedipus Rex, for example,
express a curiosity about Apollo's oracle and describes the ruinous landscape of Thebes. Its
78
second utterance reminds the audience of the newness of Tiresias‘s report: "And never until now
has any man brought word/Of Laius's dark death staining Oedipus the King." The chorus
reiterates some of the action, expressing varying degrees of hope and despair will respect to it;
one of its members delivers the play's final lines, much like the Shakespearean epilogue.
Sometimes the chorus sings a dirge with one or more characters, as when it suggests to Oedipus
not to disbelieve Creon's protestations of innocence.
Setting
Setting the play's action occurs outside Oedipus's palace in Thebes. Thebes had been founded,
according to the myth, by Cadmus (a son of Agenor, King of Phoenicia) while searching for his
sister Europa, who had been abducted by Zeus in the form of a bull. A direct line of descent can
be traced from Cadmus to Oedpius; between them are Polydorus, Labdacus, and, of course,
Laius.
Imagery and Foreshadowing
Associated with knowledge and ignorance are the recurring images of darkness and light in the
play, and these images work as examples of a kind of foreshadowing for which the play is justly
famous. When the play begins, the priest uses this set of contrasts to describe the current
condition of Thebes: "And all the house of Kadmos is laid waste/All emptied, and all darkened."
Shortly after this moment, Oedipus promises Creon: "Then once more I must bring what is dark
to light,'' that is, the murder of Laius will out and Oedipus will be responsible for finding and
exposing the culprit(s). Metaphorical and literal uses of darkness and light also provide
foreshadowing, since it is Oedipus's desire to bring the truth to light that leads him to a
self−knowledge ruinous and evil enough to cause him to blind himself. After the shepherd
reveals his birth he declares, "O Light, may I look on you for the last time!" In saying this he sets
up for the audience, who are, presumably, familiar with the legend of Oedipus, his subsequent
actions. The second messenger describes his command to himself as he proceeds to perform the
gruesome task: "From this hour, go in darkness!" thereby enacting both a literal and
metaphorical fall into the dark consequences of his unbearable knowledge. These are but a few
examples of how imagery and foreshadowing as techniques can meet, overlap, and mutually
inform one another in the play; through subjective interpretation, many more may be found.
79
Historical Context
Sophocles lived and worked in a time of great cultural significance, not only in the history of
Athens but the greater sense of western democratic culture. Wars with Persia and Sparta, the
development of democratic culture, public architectural projects, and theatrical entertainments,
as well as the rise of a distinctively rhetorical culture (a culture based on the strength of language
and writing) are important features of the Athens during Sophocles's life, known as the Golden
Age of Athens.
Soon after Cleisthenes established democracy in Athens in 507 B.C., Athens was threatened by
outside enemies. At the beginning of the fifth century B.C., the Persians, led by Darius, crossed
the Aegean to conquer Athens. After its triumph over Miletos in 494, the Persian army began to
be defeated, with Athens winning the decisive victory at Marathon in 490. The battles of
Salamis, Platea, and Mycale in 480−79 were also won by Athens, and the Persian forces (led by
Xerxes I) finally lost the war. The Athenians prided themselves on their victory over Xerxes;
roughly fifteen years after Sophocles's birth, Athens had become an Empire in its own right,
forming the Dehan League in 478−77. From 492−60 the city−state was led by Pericles, a
populist leader who is famous today for his military skill, his rhetorical prowess, and his public
building projects—including the Parthenon. Sophocles himself took part in some of Pericles's
projects and in the city's military life, aiding Pericles in the Samian war (441−39), becoming an
ambassador some years later, and joining the ruling council in 413.
Although the Persian threat had subsided, a new threat arose: the Peloponnesian War with Sparta
and other states under their leadership began in 432. Thucydides, an Athenian general and
historian noted for his impartiality and accuracy, tells the story of this war in his History of the
Peloponnesian War. Athens, defeated in Sicily in 413, surrendered to Sparta (which was being
supported by Persia) in 404, the year after Sophocles died.
In the midst of all this war, Athenian democracy flourished during Sophocles's lifetime, its
commercial enterprises along the eastern Mediterranean coastline were successful, and its
cultural life enjoyed immense nourishment and development. Greek religious life centered on the
shrines frequented by worshippers of Apollo at Delphi, Apollo and Artemis at Delos, and Zeus at
Olympia. Festivals were often held at the shrines, and athletic competitions, dance, song, and
80
theatrical performances also took place. Intellectually, Athens was thriving—its mathematicians
and scientists, after the work of Pythagoras and Xenophanes during the previous century, began
to make new discoveries in arithmetic and geology; Pericles, who studied sophistry with Zeno,
brought the skill of oratory to new, unprecedented heights, and his support of the plastic and
literary arts allowed Athenians to enjoy the lasting achievements of their contemporaries. While
public building was interrupted by the Persian war, it resumed with vigor in the latter half of the
fifth century, with the Temple of Zeus at Olympia and, in Athens, the Temple of Athena Nike, as
well as the Parthenon, Propylaea, and the Erechtheum. Pericles saw to it that elaborate public
building projects motivated artists of his time to achieve greatness for their city.
Greek drama also flourished. Pericles provided entertainments and pageantry, granting
allowances for public festivals so that all men could attend them. Aeschylus, Sophocles, and
Euripides were the three great dramatists of the age; Sophocles competed successfully with both
his teacher Aeschylus and with his contemporary, Euripides, in the annual tragic competitions of
the Great Dionysia. Some of the drama of this period concerned specific political issues, such as
Phrynichos's Capture of Mileros (493) and Aeschylus's Persians (472). Other plays, like
Aeschylus's Oresteia and Oedipus Rex address broader questions about mythological leaders and
their relationships to the gods, fate, and their native Greek cultural heritage. While critics have
argued that readers are not meant to draw any parallels between the plague−ridden Thebes in
which Oedipus Rex takes place and the plague in Athens in 430−29 B.C., it is not difficult to
surmise that an audience for whom the experience of such devastation was familiar would have
felt particular connections with their own situation.
Character Analysis
Creon1. Jocasta2. Oedipus3. Teiresias4. Other Characters5.
Creon
Creon is the brother of Laius. Before the play begins Oedipus sent him on a mission to receive
the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, and he returns with its news during the prologue. With great
hesitation he reports that "The god commands us to expel from the land of Thebes/An old
defilement we are sheltering.'' He says that in order to rid the city of its woes, Oedipus must find
the murderer of King Laius, his predecessor. Oedipus feels threatened by Creon and believes that
81
he covets the throne (by some accounts Creon was to have been the next ruler following his
brother's death, and he is thus filled with resentment).
When Tiresias tells the unbelieving Oedipus what he will come to know, his true identity and
responsibility for his father's murder, Oedipus immediately assumes that Tiresias is working for
Creon, trying to get him the throne. Creon takes these accusations seriously and wishes to clear
his name: "The fact is that I am being called disloyal/ To the State, to my fellow citizens, to my
friends." Creon defends himself to Oedipus in the next scene, saying that he has no desire to
become king and that Oedipus harms himself and the state in leveling such accusations. Oedipus
grows more incensed and calls for Creon's death; only the pleading of Jocasta and a member of
the chorus prevent him from acting. At the end of the play, after Oedipus has blinded himself,
Creon becomes king and acts with compassion towards the repentant Oedipus, leading him into
the palace and then, as Oedipus requests—and Apollo has ordained—into exile.
Creon is a moderate man who knows the power of the gods. He behaves in ways which show
what the Greeks thought right for a civilized ruler. The Chorus point this out on several
occasions.
Find two quotes where the Chorus praise something Creon has said or done. Explain why they
Admire him.
Creon shows respect to Oedipus even when he is accused of treason.
He tries to use reason rather than letting his temper take over.
He puts the law of the gods before that of men and feels they should be consulted
regularly.
He thinks it is wrong for men to think they can act on their own, without asking the
gods.
He is generous to Oedipus and his family, even after Oedipus has treated him so badly.
82
Jocasta
Jocasta is Oedipus's wife and mother; she is also the mother of his children. Her first entrance
onstage occurs when Oedipus and Creon are in the midst of arguing; Jocasta storms in and
demands that they resolve their petty personal dispute because the country's troubles are far more
urgent: "Poor foolish men, what wicked din is this?/With Thebes sick to death, is it not
shameful/That you should rake some private quarrel up?" She pleads with Oedipus to believe
Creon's good intentions towards him, and their hostilities momentarily abate. She assures
Oedipus that the oracle proclaiming Laius's murder by his own son was false, since Laius was
killed by highwaymen, and his son had been left "to die on a lonely mountainside." Rather than
placating Oedipus, her words haunt him, he recalls "a shadowy memory,'' and asks her to give
details about Laius's death. The surviving witness to the crime, tells Jocasta, had come to her
when Oedipus was made king and asked her if he could be sent far away; she granted him his
wish and now is asked by Oedipus to recall this witness—a shepherd—to the palace to testify
about the murder.
Jocasta tells Oedipus not to trust in the truth of oracles. When the messenger arrives to tell of
Polybos's death, Jocasta is hopeful that she can allay Oedipus's fears about fulfilling the
prophecy. Later in the same scene she tries to stop him from questioning the messenger
regarding his true father: "May you never learn who you are!" In her final speech she calls
Oedipus "miserable'' and says she will have no other name for him. Towards the end of the play
a second messenger reports that she has hanged herself, giving a moving account of her wailing
and physical expressions of grief during her last moments. Thornton Wilder, the American
playwright, eloquently described Sophocles‘ artistry in portraying Jocasta in American
Characteristics and Other Essays: "The figure of the Queen is drawn with great precision,
shielding her husband form the knowledge she foresees approaching; alternately condemning
and upholding the authority of the oracles as best suits the direction of the argument at the
moment, and finally giving up the struggle."
Like Oedipus, she is a victim of a plan of the gods which treats her badly. She is a character who
commands the respect of her people and Oedipus trusts her. She is sensitive and thoughtful
83
towards Oedipus and she tries to keep the horrible truth about his parents from him even when
she knows herself.
Find a quote from the play showing her as being:
respected by the people
a person whom Oedipus trusts
Trying to save Oedipus from more pain.
If she has a flaw, it is to believe that things in life happen by chance. This can be clearly seen by
the contrast between what she says in scene three about fortunetellers and what she does in
scene four: in scene three she tells Oedipus she has proof that Apollo‘s oracles are false and tells
him the story of the baby and Laius ‗death. On hearing Oedipus ‗account of killing someone
where three roads meet she is obviously upset, though trying to hide it from Oedipus. At the
beginning of scene four she enters carrying incense and garlands of flowers (offerings to the
gods) and calls on Apollo to purify the city.
When she discovers the truth she, like Oedipus, punishes herself by taking her own life.
Oedipus
Oedipus, the title character, is the protagonist of the play. His name means "swell−foot" or
"swollen−foot." One of the most famous dramatic characters in the history of western literature,
he was singled out by Aristotle in his Poetics as the right kind of protagonist because he inspires
the right combination of pity and fear. "This is the sort of man who is not preeminently virtuous
and just, and yet it is through no badness or villainy of his own that he falls into the misfortune,
but rather through some flaw in him; he being one of those who are in high station and good
fortune, like Oedipus and Thyestes and the famous men of families such as these." Oedipus's
fatal flaw, the technical Greek term for which is hamartia, can be thought of as a character fault
or a mistake, or more like an Achilles heel rather than a flaw for which he can be held directly
responsible. A hereditary curse has been placed on his family, and he unknowingly has fulfilled
the terms of the prophecy that Laius's son would kill him and marry his wife.
84
The play's action is concerned with the gradual and delayed revelation of the fulfillment of this
oracle. It specifically focuses on Oedipus's quest for knowledge, on the one hand, and, on the
other, the other characters' resistance to discovering the truth; Jocasta tries to protect her
husband/brother from the facts, and the shepherd cannot be forced to speak until his life is at
stake. Oedipus impatiently confronts Creon and Tiresias with their hesitation to answer his
summons to the palace to share their knowledge with him and the public. Connected with this
frustration is a feature of Oedipus's personality for which he is somewhat more responsible;
Oedipus is also said to suffer from a character flaw known as hubris, or pride, and his cruel
treatment of Creon and Tiresias in the aforementioned situations evidences this trait. He insists
on hearing the truth, again and again, in the face of reluctant tellers who are scared for their lives,
for his life, and for the Perhaps it is Oedipus's pride which rounds him out and allows Aristotle to
hold him up as a well−fashioned character, since without it he would seem too virtuous and the
tragedy would be too "unlikely." Oedipus's speech is also given a good dose of irony in the play.
For example, when he calls for an investigation of Laius's murder and says "then once more I
must bring what is dark to light," he is also foreshadowing his future blinding, since his
investigation will reveal the dark secret of his parentage, metaphorically enlightened by the truth,
but literally blinded by it as well. When he curses the murderer of Laius he is cursing himself
and predicts his own exile and consequent life of "wretchedness." Oedipus is wise (he has solved
the riddle of the Sphinx), revered by his subjects, and dedicated to the discovery of truth. He
wants to rid Thebes of the plague (pollution, a common theme in Greek drama) that is
decimating its population. Fate and the gods, however, have other things in store for Oedipus,
and his helplessness and utter ruin at the play's conclusion are a painful spectacle.
Oedipus Heroes in tragedy sometimes have qualities we admire and a fault or flaw which makes
them act in a way which leads to disaster. In Greek tragedy the fate of the hero is linked to a
system beyond the control of one person and may even (as with Oedipus) be decided before he is
born. Oedipus possesses both admirable qualities and human flaws.
Good Qualities
He is a concerned king who earned the respect of his people.
He saves Thebes from the Sphinx by his intelligence.
Classical Studies Support Materials: Oedipus the King 26
85
He shows courage and honesty when he finds out he is the killer by punishing himself
and
Accepting responsibility. A weaker man might have tried to cover up his guilt.
Find a quote from the play which shows each one of these points.
Flaws
He is quick tempered and unreasonable towards Creon and Tiresias (and Laius).
He shows arrogance/hubris in putting his decisions above the law of the gods when he
tells Creon
That asking he will decide and what he says must be obeyed as if it were law.
Find a quote from the play which shows each one of these points.
Things beyond Oedipus’ Control
Fate/the gods have marked him out for disaster, even before he was born.
However much he tries to do the right thing, it will make no difference
Tiresias
Tiresias, a blind prophet and servant of Apollo, twice was asked by Oedipus to come to the
palace to discuss the crisis in Thebes. In the first act of the play he finally appears, revealing the
reasons for the city's devastation, knowledge that he is reluctant to reveal to Oedipus for fear of
making him miserable. Oedipus, feeling himself to be betrayed by the prophet's resistance,
verbally abuses Tiresias ("You sightless, witless, senseless, mad old man!‖) and accuses him of
working on behalf of the "usurper" Creon.
Reluctantly, Tiresias tells Oedipus that he should not mock him so quickly; in a famous moment
of foreshadowing, he tells the king that it is he who is blind: "But I say that you, with both your
eyes, are blind:/You cannot see the wretchedness of your life, /nor in whose house you live, no,
nor with whom." Significantly, Tiresias is also the first character in the play to question
Oedipus's assumption that he knows his parentage and to tell him that he has committed
atrocities that he does not yet know are his own. He tells Oedipus that he will become blind and
86
poor, that Oedipus is himself Laius's murderer, and that he will learn that he has fathered
children with his mother. While Tiresias‘s presence on stage is brief, as a prophet representing
the god Apollo he remains one of the most powerful characters in the play; in addition, the
Athenian audience would have recognized him from Homeric mythology (in The Odyssey the
title character must go down into the underworld to gain information from the dead prophet).
Other Characters
Chorus of Theban Elders Unlike the chorus in Antigone, who‘s Ode on Man historically has
been regarded as a model expression of Athenian individualism, the chorus in this play has no
famous statement, though its role is not insignificant. The Theban elders of the chorus are
considered to be fairly representative men of Thebes who honor and respect the king and the
gods; their odes reveal both a strong attachment to the king as well as a grounding in religious
culture. In The Idea of a Theater, Francis Fergusson likens the chorus' role to that of a character
who provides a broader context for the action of the play as a whole: "the chorus' action is not
limited by the sharp, rationalized purposes of the protagonist; its mode of action, more patient,
less sharply realized, is cognate with
Messenger The messenger enters in Scene iii and tells Oedipus that King Polios of Corinth,
whom Oedipus had believed to be his father, is dead. Oedipus also learns from this messenger
that Polios was not his father; the messenger himself had been given Oedipus as an infant by one
of Laius's men, and that he had untied Oedipus's bound ankles. He causes the shepherd who left
Oedipus to die (having been given him by Jocasta, his mother) to come in and testify that
Oedipus is Laius's son.
Messengers were common devices used in Greek drama. They were often used to relate action
that occurred offstage or to summarize events that have taken place between acts or scenes.
Priest after Oedipus's opening lines, the Priest of Zeus is the next character in the play to speak,
and he does so as a religious leader and elder representative of the people of Thebes. Standing
before the king's palace, surrounded by the Theban people, the priest informs Oedipus (and the
audience) of the misery−laden condition of Thebes: a plague is killing many of the city‘s human
and animal populations, and fires are destroying the lands and its crops. He praises Oedipus, who
87
has solved the riddle of the Sphinx, for his wisdom and ability to improve their lives, and asks of
him, on behalf of the people, swiftly and decisively to act and end the suffering.
Second Messenger The second messenger appears in the last scene to announce and describe
Jocasta suicide. He also relates Oedipus's discovery of her body and his subsequent blinding. He
predicts future sorrows for a people whose kings descend from this polluted line. The second
messenger also announces Oedipus's entry onstage after his self−mutilation: "You will see a
thing that would crush a heart of stone."
Shepherd of Laius The old shepherd is summoned by Oedipus so that he can discover his true
parentage. The shepherd reveals his information only after Oedipus threatens his life if he
remains silent. He admits to receiving the infant he gave to Polybius‘s messenger from Laius and
Jocasta. Oedipus realizes his identity and his crimes of patricide and incest after hearing the
shepherd's story.
Various Interpretations
Various views have been advanced about the meaning of Oedipus Rex. According to one view,
the play justifies the gods by showing that we get what we deserve. Oedipus is a bad man as is
seen in his treatment of Creon, and so the gods punish him. Or, he is not altogether bad; he is
even rather noble in some ways; but he has one of these defects which all tragic heroes have.
According to a second view, Oedipus Rex is a tragedy of destiny.
The play shows that man has no free will but is a puppet in the hands of the gods who pull the
strings. According to yet another view, Sophocles was a ―pure artist,‖ and was therefore not
interested in offering a thesis about the gods. He took the story of Oedipus as he found it and
used it to write an exciting play, with the gods simply a part of the machinery of the plot
Oedipus’s Goodness
All the above interpretations of the play, says F.R. Dodd‘s, are unsound. The first two of these
interpretations are linked with Aristotle‘s view that the tragic hero is a man highly esteemed and
prosperous who falls into misfortune because of some serious hamartia or defect. Oedipus is
88
proud and overconfident; he harbors unjustified suspicions against Tiresias and Creon; in one
place he goes so far as to express some uncertainty about the truth of oracles. But the flaw in this
argument is that, even before the action of the play, Oedipus has been declared to be a wouldbe
incestuous parricide, which means that the punishment has been decided upon before the crime
has been committed. Apart from that, Sophocles has depicted Oedipus as a good man. In the eyes
of the Priest in the opening scene Oedipus is the greatest and noblest of men, the savior of
Thebes who with divine aid rescued the city From the Sphinx. The Chorus has the same view of
him: he has proved his wisdom; he is the darling of the people; and never will the people believe
ill of him.
Offence Committed in Ignorance
By hamartia, Aristotle did not mean a moral defect as is generally supposed; he means an
offence committed in ignorance of some material fact and therefore free from wickedness or
vice. An example of such an offence is Thyestes eating the flesh of his own children in the belief
that it was butcher‘s meat, and subsequently begetting a child on his own daughter, not knowing
who she was. The story of Thyestes has much in common with that of Oedipus. Both these men
violated the most sacred of Nature‘s laws and as incurred the most horrible of all pollutions. But
they both did so without wickedness, because they knew not what they did. Had they acted
knowingly, they would have been inhuman monsters. In that case we could not have felt for them
that pity which tragedy ought to produce. As it is, we feel both pity and terror—pity for the
fragile state of man, and terror because of a world whose laws we do not understand. The
hamartia of Oedipus did not lie in losing his temper with Tiresias; it lay quite simply in killing
his father and marrying his mother. It is a wrong notion to say that the dramatist has a moral duty
to represent the world as a place where the good are always rewarded and the bad are always
punished. This notion is completely foreign to Aristotle as well as to the practice of the Greek
dramatists. Aristotle did not say that the tragic hero must have a serious moral defect of
character.
89
“Moral Innocence” of Oedipus
A suggestion is sometimes made that Oedipus should have taken every possible precaution to
avoid his fate. But the oracle‘s prediction was unconditional; it did not say that if Oedipus did
such and such a thing he would kill his father and marry his mother. The oracle simply said that
Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. What an oracle said, was bound to happen.
Oedipus does what he can to evade his fate: he resolves never to see his (supposed) parents
again. But it is quite certain from the first that his best efforts would be unavailing. What should
be emphasized is Oedipus‘s essential moral innocence.
Oedipus, No Puppet but a Free Agent
If Oedipus is the innocent victim of a doom which he cannot avoid, is he a mere puppet? Is the
whole play a ―tragedy of destiny‖ which denies human freedom? Such a view would be wrong,
too. Sophocles did not intend that we should treat Oedipus as a puppet and not a free agent.
Neither in Homer nor in Sophocles does divine foreknowledge of certain events imply that all
human actions are predetermined. The Messenger in the present play emphatically distinguishes
Oedipus‘s selfblinding as voluntary and selfchosen from the involuntary parricide and incest.
Certain of Oedipus‘s actions were fatebound; but everything that he does on the stage from first
to last he does as a free agent.
Even the Major Sins not Fate-Bound
Even in calling the parricide and the incest fatebound we perhaps go too far. The average citizen
of Sophocles‘ day would not perhaps have thought so. As has been said, the gods know the
future but they do not order it. This view may not satisfy the analytical philosopher, but it seems
to have satisfied the ordinary man at all periods. Let us recall Jesus‘s words to St. Peter,
―Before the cockcrow, thou shall deny me thrice.‖ We are not to think that Peter‘s subsequent
action was fatebound in the sense that he could not have chosen otherwise. Peter fulfilled the
prediction, but he did so by an act of free choice.
The Real Cause of Oedipus’s Ruin
According to one view, the gods force on Oedipus the knowledge of what he has done. This
view is unconvincing. The gods do nothing of the kind. On the contrary, what fascinates us is the
90
spectacle of a man freely choosing, from the highest motives, a series of actions which lead to
his own ruin. Oedipus could have left the plague to take its course; but pity for the sufferings of
his people compelled him to consult the oracle. When Apollo‘s word came, he might still have
left the murder of Laius uninvestigated; but piety and justice compelled him to act. He need not
have forced the truth from the reluctant Theban Shepherd; but he could not rest content with a lie
and therefore wanted to tear away the last veil from the illusion in which he had lived so long.
Tiresias, Jocasta, the Shepherd, each in turn tries to stop Oedipus, but in vain: he must read the
last riddle, the riddle of his own life. The immediate cause of Oedipus‘s ruin is not ―fate‖ or
―the gods‖: no oracle said that he must discover the truth. Still less does the cause of his ruin lie
in his own weakness. What causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to
Thebes, and his loyalty to the truth. In all this we are to see him as a free agent. And his self
mutilation and selfbanishment are equally free acts of choice.
The Theme in the Other Two Plays of the Trilogy
This view is supported by Oedipus at Colonus and Antigone, the other plays of Sophocles‘
trilogy. We find that the theme of the conflict between father and son runs through all the three
tragedies. In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus kills his father Laius who had intended to take the infant‘s
life. In Oedipus at Colonus, Oedipus gives vent to his intense hate against his sons. In Antigone,
we find the same hate again, between Creon and his son Harmon. The problem of incest exists
neither in the relationship between Oedipus‘s sons to their mother nor in the relationship between
Harmon and his mother, Eurydice. Thus it is quite valid to hold that the real issue in Oedipus
Rex too is the conflict between father and son and not the problem of incest.
The feeling of curiosity behind the tragedy
The pressure of curiosity is sweetly bitter; curiosity is also uncontrollable. Curiosity leads
Oedipus to the greatest of disasters. It was while inquiring into his own identity in the belief that
he was not a Corinthian but a foreigner, that he met Laius. When he had killed Laius, won the
throne, and married his mother as well, he once more made inquiry into his identity. His wife
tried to stop him but he grew all the more insistent in questioning the old man who knew the
facts. Finally, when the affair was already leading him to a suspicion of the truth and the old man
had cried out, ―Alas! I am on the very point of saying the fearful thing!‖ Oedipus nonetheless
91
answered, ―And I of hearing it. But all the same it must be heard.‖ The consequence was a most
painful tragedy.
A Victim of His Victory over Unconscious Fantasies
The treasure which the Sphinx guards is not gold, but an intellectual one, namely knowledge.
The hidden and closely guarded secret is the unknown of the sexual riddle. While the fabulous
dragon must be killed in other mythical stories in order that the treasure of gold may become the
possession of man, the Sphinx significantly kills herself when her secret is broken in time of
maturation. Oedipus, the swollenfooted hero, does not kill the monster by physical force but
defeats her through insight and knowledge. The primary anxiety, connected with the sexual
riddle, shapes the pattern of all subsequent anxiety arising from the unknown, especially if one is
confronted with the riddle of existence and nonexistence. The dragonkiller is a hero if he is the
victor in the struggle with his own monster—with the feeling of anxiety and guilt that lies hidden
in his unconscious fantasies. All dragonkiller heroes become finally the victims of their victory
over unconscious fantasies. Oedipus, just because he has defeated the monster of the unknown,
personifies the greatest blunder, the final defeat of the conscious selfevident thinking and the
victory of the Sphinx, that is, of the psychic forces which are hidden in the unconscious and the
unknown of the own self. He is the victim of his infatuation.
Oedipus’s Real Fruit
Oedipus‘s hamartia is not bad temper, suspiciousness, or hastiness in action, for his punishment
does not fit these crimes. Nor is it ignorance of who his parents are, for ignorance of this type is
not culpable. Still less is it murder and incest, for these things are fated for him by the gods.
Oedipus‘s fault is his failure in existential commitment, a failure to recognize his own
involvement in the human condition, a failure to realize that not all difficulties are riddles to be
solved by the application of pure intellect but that some are mysteries not to be solved at all but
to be coped with only by the engagement of the whole self. Oedipus‘s punishment, then, is not
really punishment at all, but the only means by which the gods may enlighten blindness of this
destiny. Sophocles was not concerned to tell a crime and punishment story; this is shown by his
leaving the ―crimes‖ out of the action.
92
8. Bibliography and Further Reading Nietzsche, Friedrich.The Birth of Tragedy. Macmillan, 1907.
Aristotle. The Poetics. Translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe. London: Heinemann, 1927.
Aristotle's important discussion of effective tragic form includes many references to the
exemplarity of Sophocles‘ play, and provides a useful understanding of classical poetic
theory.
Bates, William Nickerson Sophocles, Poet and Dramatist. London: Oxford University Press,
1940. In a chapter on Oedipus, Bates summarizes the plot and offers general, laudatory
remarks on Sophoclean tragedy, followed by discussions of the protagonist and Jocasta.
Boora, C. M.Sophoclean Tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1944. Boora‘s focus is on the
role of Apollo and the gods in the play, offering a historical reading that contextualizes the
oracle in Athenian society.
Bushnell, Rebecca Prophesying Tragedy: Sight and Voice in Sophocles‘ Theban Plays.
Cornell
University Press, 1988. Bushnell compellingly argues that Oedipus's desire to speak and his
aversion to silence together create a character whose faith in the efficacy of human words
unsuccessfully challenges oracular knowledge.
Philosophy Index. "Absurdism." Existentialism and the Absurd { Philosophy Index }. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
Shmoop Editorial Team. "The Stranger Theme of Philosophical Viewpoints: The Absurd."
Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc.,11 Nov. 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
Liturgical drama and the reimagining of medieval theatre: medieval institute press, 2017
The staging of 12th c liturgical drama in the fleury “play book”1984
Chang Kaolin. (2006). A Survey of English Literature. Tianjin: Nankeen University Press.
93
Kelli. (2008). Classical Readings of English Literature. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Barton J –Playing Shakespeare (Methuen, 2001) ISBN 9780713687736
Berry C –Text in Action: A Definitive Guide to Exploring Text in Rehearsal for Actors and
Directors (Virgin, 2001)
Chang Kaolin. (2006). A Survey of English Literature. Tianjin: Nankeen University Press.
Kelli. (2008). Classical Readings of English Literature. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Liturgical drama and the reimagining of medieval theatre: medieval institute press, 2017
The staging of 12th c liturgical drama in the fleury “play book”1984
Caret Griffith. (1993). Socialism and Superior Brains. London and New York: Rutledge. Dial
Philosophy Index. "Absurdism." Existentialism and the Absurd { Philosophy Index }. N.p., n.d.
Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
Shmoop Editorial Team. "The Stranger Theme of Philosophical Viewpoints: The Absurd."
Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc.,11 Nov. 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2015.
Bamet, Sylvan,et al. Types of Drama: Plays and Context. Longman, Inc.1997. Print.
Parker, Gerald D. "The Modem Theatre As Autonomous Vehicle". Modern
Drama. Vol. XVI. Sept 1973. 373387. Print.
Styan, J.L. Modern Drama in Theoiy and Practice 2: Symbolism, Surrealism,
and the Absurd.Cambridge Univ. Press. 1981 .Print